# Om Prakash v. Smt. Prayagwati Devi Agrawal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 213
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-18
- **Case number:** Writ A (Rent Control) No. 9686 of 2020
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/om-prakash-v-smt-prayagwati-devi-agrawal-ors-46734
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Section 21 (1) (a) - Eviction
suit - Relationship of landlord and tenant
- Ownership - Relevancy - Capacity of
plaintiff as the landlord admitted - Effect
- Ownership of a person is immaterial for
the purpose of the Act - Held, although
the landlord has placed evidence of his
ownership on record and has been upheld
by both the courts below and there is a
concurrent finding on record in this
regard, however, I have discussed the
abovenoted law for the reason that the
case of the petitioner holds no ground that
the plaintiff, who had filed the suit is not
the landlord and therefore, the release
application was not maintainable - No
jurisdictional error or perversity in the
findings recorded and the conclusion
drawn by the courts below. (Para 14, 16
and 20)
B.
Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Section 21 (1) (a) - Eviction -
Bona fide need - Younger son of landlord
is in some private job, no independent
business of his own - Held, need to settle
younger son in a business on a shop in
dispute is genuine and bonafide. (Para 18)
C.
Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Section 21 (1) (a) - Eviction -
Comparative hardhip - No effort to search
alternative accommodation by tenant -
Effect - Held, it is not in dispute that no
effort was made by the tenant to search
any
other
alternative
accommodation
during pendency of the litigation, it cannot
be
said
that
the
tenant
has
any
comparative hardship - Court, below,
correctly decided the issue. (Para 18)
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ Petition dismissed . (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

2 All. Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Prayagwati Devi Agrawal & Ors.
213
amount to violation of rules of natural
justice.

22. Admittedly, no regular enquiry was
conducted against the petitioner and only on
the basis of summary enquiry, the respondentauthority has passed the impugned order.

23. It is settled proposition of law that
unless a regular enquiry is conducted by
providing reasonable opportunity to the
delinquent and unless the alleged charge is
proved in the enquiry, no punishment can be
imposed, otherwise. it amounts to violation of
principles of natural justice.

24. In view of aforesaid observations, the
writ petition succeeds and the same is
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
18.07.2019 passed in appeal is hereby set
aside.

25. The matter is remanded back to the
disciplinary authority to proceed from the
stage prior to the passing of the impugned
order and conclude the regular enquiry within
a period of six months from the date of
production of copy of this order.

26. However, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, there will be no
order as to costs.
----------
(2021)02ILR A213
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Writ A (Rent Control) No. 9686 of 2020

Om Prakash ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Prayagwati Devi Agrawal & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nikhil Mishra, Sri Manish Goyal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Kshitij Shailendra

A.
Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Section 21 (1) (a) - Eviction
suit - Relationship of landlord and tenant
- Ownership - Relevancy - Capacity of
plaintiff as the landlord admitted - Effect
- Ownership of a person is immaterial for
the purpose of the Act - Held, although
the landlord has placed evidence of his
ownership on record and has been upheld
by both the courts below and there is a
concurrent finding on record in this
regard, however, I have discussed the
abovenoted law for the reason that the
case of the petitioner holds no ground that
the plaintiff, who had filed the suit is not
the landlord and therefore, the release
application was not maintainable - No
jurisdictional error or perversity in the
findings recorded and the conclusion
drawn by the courts below. (Para 14, 16
and 20)
B.
Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Section 21 (1) (a) - Eviction -
Bona fide need - Younger son of landlord
is in some private job, no independent
business of his own - Held, need to settle
younger son in a business on a shop in
dispute is genuine and bonafide. (Para 18)
C.
Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Section 21 (1) (a) - Eviction -
Comparative hardhip - No effort to search
alternative accommodation by tenant -
Effect - Held, it is not in dispute that no
effort was made by the tenant to search
any
other
alternative
accommodation
during pendency of the litigation, it cannot
be
said
that
the
tenant
has
any
comparative hardship - Court, below,
correctly decided the issue. (Para 18)
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ Petition dismissed . (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Junaid Ahmed Vs IInd A.D.J., Allahabad,
1986 (1) ARC 418
2. Mohiuddin Vs IInd A.D.J, Allahabad 1986 (1)
ARC
420
3. Sushil Kumar Soni Vs Smt. Sheela, 2016 (1)
ARC 284
4. Narender Kumar Manchanda Vs Hemant
Kumar Talwar, 2012 SCC Online Del 6125 :
2013 (197) DLT 171
5. Kedarnath Agarwal (dead) & anr. Vs Dhanraji
Devi (dead) by Lrs & anr., (2004) 8 SCC 76
6. Management of Madurantakam Sugar Mill
Ltd. Vs S. Vishwanathan, (2005) 3 SCC 193
7. Kanaklata Das & ors. Vs Naba Kumar Das &
ors., (2018) 2 SCC 352
8. Tapeshwari Mal Vs Rishikesh Varma, (2018)
131 ALR 517
9. K.D. Dewan Vs Harbhajan S. Parihar, AIR
2002 SC 67
10. Lakshmi Traders Akbarpur Mandi & ors. Vs
Navin Rastogi & anr., 2019 (1) ADJ 801
11. Raj Mohan Krishna Vs The Second A.D.J. &
ors. AIR 1993 Allahabad 40
12. Vijay Lata Sharma Vs Raj Pal & anr., AIR
2004 SC 4390
13. Jeet Kaur & anr. Vs Bala Ji Builders & ors.,
2019 (4) AWC 3123
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nikhil
Mishra, learned counsel for the petitionertenant and Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned
counsel for the respondents-landlord.

2. Present petition has been filed for
quashing the order dated 1.9.2020 passed
by the District Judge, Hathras in UPUB
Appeal No. 1 of 2019. Further prayer has
been made seeking quashing of the order
dated 9.1.2019 passed by the Prescribed
Authority / Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Hathras in P.A. Case No. 12 of 2004.

3. Shorn of details, facts in brief are
that the landlord filed release application
under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of
1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
against the petitioner-tenant herein seeking
release of the shop in favour of the landlord
on the ground of bona fide requirement of
the shop no. 1 at Bengali Mandir Ramleela
Chauk Veniganj, Hathras for the purpose of
business of her younger son Pankaj
Agarwal. It was asserted that the tenant is
not carrying on any business in the shop in
dispute and the same is lying vacant. The
petitioner-tenant contested the matter on
the ground that no default has been
committed in payment of rent; the plaintiffrespondent is not the owner of the shop in
question; the shop in question is owned by
Swami Thakur Bihari Ji Maharaj Virajman
Bangali Mandir, Ramleela Maidan, Hathras
and the only role of the plaintiff no. 1 was
to collect the rent on behalf of the Trust,
therefore, the release application itself was
not maintainable at the instance of the
plaintiff-landlord-respondent;
the
respondents are merely Managers of the
Trust property which includes the shop in
question; Pankaj Agarwal for whose
alleged need release is being claimed is
gainfully employed in a private job;
business is being carried on in the shop and
is not lying vacant.

4. The release application was
allowed by the trial court by the Prescribed
Authority vide impugned judgment dated
9.10.2019. The appeal filed by the
petitioner-tenant under Section 22 of the
Act was dismissed by the lower appellate
2 All. Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Prayagwati Devi Agrawal & Ors.
215
court vide judgment and order dated
1.9.2020.

5. The trial court framed three issues;
whether the defendant is tenant of the
plaintiff in the shop in dispute; whether the
need of the landlady is genuine and
bonafide; and in case the application is
allowed or rejected, who will suffer greater
hardship.

6. On issue no. 1 it was found that the
defendant has accepted the applicant as
landlady and in municipal assessment paper
no. 95-c name of the landlady is recorded
as owner, therefore, the petitioner herein is
the tenant of the plaintiff. On issue no. 2
regarding genuine and bonafide need of the
landlady it was found that Pankaj Agarwal
son of the applicant no. 1 is admittedly
working as an employee in ready-made
garments shop of Ashok Khurana and as
such need to establish him in his own
business on the shop in question is bonafide
and
genuine.
Insofar
as
issue
of
comparative hardship is concerned, it was
found that there was specific allegation
levelled by the landlady that the shop is
lying vacant and no business is being done.
It was found that the tenant did not produce
any evidence to establish that he is carrying
business in the shop in question. That apart,
it was found that no attempt to search
alternative accommodation was also made
by the tenant and therefore, as per the
settled law the issue of comparative
hardship was also decided in favour of the
plaintiff.

7. In the appeal the appellate court
recorded concurrent findings of fact. After
considering
the
documents
municipal
assessment paper no. 48-c filed by the
tenant and copy of assessment paper no.
95-c filed by the defendant it was found
that the municipal assessment 48-c relates
to some 'Balakhana' and it is not related to
the disputed shop. It was found that in
respect of shop in question the plaintiff was
recorded in the capacity of owner. After
appreciating the documents relating to SCC
No. 25 of 2003 it was further found by the
appellate authority that the tenant has
accepted the applicant no. 1 as landlady
and it was specifically admitted that she
was collecting the rent from the tenant.
Insofar as the bonafide need of Pankaj
Agarwal younger son of the plaintiff is
concerned it was found that in the written
statement it was alleged that Pankaj
Agarwal is not unemployed and is working
in the shop of Ashok Khurana since long.
Therefore, it was found that Pankaj
Agarwal is working as an employee with
another person and need to establish him in
a business in the shop in question is
genuine and bonafide. Insofar as working
of Pankaj Agarwal since 1995-96 is
concerned, it was found that at that point of
time Pankaj Agarwal was aged about only
11 years and therefore, the tenant has failed
to dispute the bonafide need of Pankaj
Agarwal. It was also found that one Komal
Prasad vacated the shop on 31.10.1995
according to his own free will, which was
rented out to one Rakesh Agarwal in the
same year as at that point of time Pankaj
Agarwal was only 11 years of age and was
studying in Class-7 only, therefore, at that
point of time there was no occasion to
establish him in business on the shop in
question. The lower appellate court further
found that although there are several other
shops of the plaintiff, however, admittedly
none of the shop is in vacant stage for the
landlady or any member of her family.
Insofar as contention of the tenant that he
was carrying on business in the shop is
concerned, it was found that no document
whatsoever relating to tax, registration,
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
income tax papers, bills of purchase, bank
account or bills of sale have been filed by
the tenant to establish that he is doing any
business in the shop in question, therefore,
the appeal was dismissed.

8. Challenging the impugned orders
submission of Sri Manish Goyal, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
is that the courts below have committed a
gross mistake of law in holding that
plaintiff is landlady; placing reliance on
paper no. 48-c it was submitted that the
property belongs to Thakur Bihari Ji
Maharaj Virajman Trust and the plaintiff is
merely Manager of the Trust and therefore,
the shop can be released only for the
bonafide need of the Trust and release
application at the instance of the plaintiff
was not maintainable; paper no. 95-c has
incorrectly been relied on by the courts
below as it is only for the purpose of
taxation and does not confer any ownership
of the shop in question on the plaintiff;
thus, findings recorded by the courts below
are based on misreading of the evidence on
record; in any case, Thakur Bihari Ji
Maharaj Virajman Trust was a necessary
party and therefore, release application was
bad for non-joinder of necessary parties
and was not maintainable; plaintiff no. 1
was admitted as landlady to the extent that
she collects the rent from the petitionertenant and it is not the ground that the
tenant has accepted relationship of the
applicant no. 1; need of Pankaj Agarwal
son of applicant no. 1 has incorrectly been
considered by the courts below as the
applicant could have been considered only
for the bonafide need of the Trust; findings
recorded by the courts below on bonafide
need of Pankaj Agarwal is perverse in
nature as he is not unemployed; courts
below have incorrectly decided the issue of
comparative hardship by casting negative
burden of proof on the tenant-petitioner by
asking the proof that he is running the shop
in question or not. Submission, therefore, is
that the impugned judgments are illegal and
are liable to be set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on judgments in the
cases
of
Junaid
Ahmed
vs.
IInd
Additional District Judge, Allahabad
1986 (1) ARC 418, Mohiuddin vs. IInd
Additional District Judge, Allahabad
1986 (1) ARC 420, Sushil Kumar Soni vs.
Smt. Sheela 2016 (1) ARC 284, Narender
Kumar Manchanda vs. Hemant Kumar
Talwar 2012 SCC Online Del 6125 2013
(197) DLT 171, Kedarnath Agarwal
(dead) and another vs. Dhanraji Devi
(dead) by Lrs and another 2004 (8) SCC
76 and Management of Madurantakam
Sugar Mill Ltd. vs. S. Vishwanathan
2005 (3) SCC 193.

10. Per contra, Sri Kshitij Shailendra,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
landlord-respondent submitted that the
findings of fact have been recorded on
merits and warrants no interference; by the
documentary evidence it was proved that
the tenant has accepted the respondent as
landlady as admitted in categorical terms
that she used to collect the rent from the
tenant; municipal assessment paper no. 95c clearly shows that the name of the
applicant no. 1 was recorded as owner of
the shop in question, wherein the tenantpetitioner was shown to be the tenant; not
only this even in the SCC proceedings the
tenant has admitted the applicant no. 1 as
landlady of the shop in question; in release
application proceedings only tenant and
landlord relationship is to be seen; in any
case, the court is not bound to go into the
dispute regarding title; status of the tenantpetitioner herein as tenant was never in
2 All. Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Prayagwati Devi Agrawal & Ors.
217
question and infact, is admitted to him;
insofar as bonafide need of Pankaj Agarwal
is concerned, admittedly, he is in a private
job working on a shop of a different person
and he has no business of his own,
therefore, need of Pankaj Agarwal s/o
applicant no. 1 is genuine and bonafide; no
other shop in vacant stage is available to
the applicants; insofar as comparative
hardship is concerned, the electricity bill
filed in evidence clearly shows that huge
arrears towards electricity charges is
mentioned in every bills which clearly
indicates that shop is not being used for any
purpose and no other document to indicate
that any business is being run in the shop in
question was ever filed before the courts
below; moreover, there is nothing on record
to indicate that the tenant made any effort
to search any alternative accommodation
during pendency of the release application,
therefore, as per the settled law the issue of
comparative hardship has been correctly
decided in favour of the applicants.

11.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent
has
placed
reliance
on
judgments in the cases of Kanaklata Das
and others s. Naba Kumar Das and
others 2018 (2) SCC 352, Tapeshwari
Mal vs. Rishikesh Varma 2018 (131)
ALR 517, K.D. Dewan vs. Harbhajan S.
Parihar AIR 2002 SC 67, Lakshmi
Traders Akbarpur Mandi and others vs.
Navin Rastogi and another 2019 (1) ADJ
801, Raj Mohan Krishna vs. The Second
Additional District Judge and others
AIR 1993 Allahabad 40, Vijay Lata
Sharma vs. Raj Pal and another AIR
2004 SC 4390 and Jeet Kaur and another
vs. Bala Ji Builders and others 2019 (4)
AWC 3123.

12. I have considered the rival
submissions and have perused the record.

13. The findings recorded by the courts
below have taken into consideration in the
earlier part of this judgment. The admitted
position in the present case is that the tenant has
accepted the applicant no. 1 as his landlady in
his written statement itself. Further, as per
Kanaklata Das (supra) it is the settled law that
for existence of landlord and tenant relationship,
the landlord is required to plead and prove only
two things (i) existence of relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties; and (ii)
grounds of eviction mentioned under relevant
rent law as in case of these two things proved,
the eviction suit is bound to succeed. Paragraph
11 of Kanaklata Das (supra) is quoted as
under:-

"11. There are some well-settled
principles of law on the question involved in
this appeal, which need to be taken into
consideration while deciding the question arose
in this appeal. These principles are mentioned
infra:

11.1. First, in an eviction suit filed by
the
plaintiff
(Landlord)
against
the
defendant(Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the
landlord and tenant are the only necessary
parties. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only
two persons are necessary parties for the
decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and
the tenant.

11.2. Second, the landlord (plaintiff)
in such suit is required to plead and prove only
two things to enable him to claim a decree for
eviction against his tenant from the tenanted suit
premises. First, there exists a relationship of the
landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and
the defendant and second, the ground(s) on
which
the
plaintiff-landlord
has
sought
defendant's-tenant's eviction under the Rent Act
exists. When these two things are proved, the
eviction suit succeeds.

11.3. Third, the question of title
to the suit premises is not germane for the
decision of the eviction suit. The reason
218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
being, if the landlord fails to prove his title
to the suit premises but proves the
existence of relationship of the landlord
and tenant in relation to the suit premises
and further proves existence of any ground
on which the eviction is sought under the
Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds.
Conversely, if the landlord proves his title
to the suit premises but fails to prove the
existence of relationship of the landlord
and tenant in relation to the suit premises,
the eviction suit fails. (See: Ranbir Singh
vs. Asharfi Lal, 1995(6) SCC 580).

11.4. Fourth, the plaintiff being a
dominus litis cannot be compelled to make
any third person a party to the suit, be that a
plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish
unless such person is able to prove that he
is a necessary party to the suit and without
his presence, the suit cannot proceed and
nor can be decided effectively. In other
words, no person can compel the plaintiff
to allow such person to become the coplaintiff or defendant in the suit. It is more
so when such person is unable to show as
to how he is a necessary or proper party to
the suit and how without his presence, the
suit can neither proceed and nor it can be
decided or how his presence is necessary
for the effective decision of the suit. (SeeRuma
Chakraborty
vs.
Sudha
Rani
Banerjee, 2005(8) SCC 140)

11.5. Fifth, a necessary party is
one without whom, no order can be made
effectively, a proper party is one in whose
absence an effective order can be made but
whose presence is necessary for a complete
and final decision on the question involved
in the proceeding. (See-Udit Narain Singh
Malpaharia vs. Board of Revenue AIR
1963 SC 786)

11.6. Sixth, if there are co-owners
or co-landlords of the suit premises then
any co-owner or co-landlord can file a suit
for eviction against the tenant. In other
words, it is not necessary that all the
owners/landlords should join in filing the
eviction suit against the tenant. (SeeKasthuri Radhakrishnan vs. M. Chinniyan,
2016(3) SCC 296)"

14. In K.D. Dewan (supra) Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that Act deals with
the rights and obligations of a landlord only
as defined therein and that ownership of a
person is immaterial for the purpose of the
Act. Paragraphs 7 and 14 whereof are
quoted as under:-

"7. A perusal of the provision,
quoted above, shows that the following
categories of persons fall within the
meaning of landlord : (1) any person for the
time being entitled to receive rent in respect
of any building or rented land; (2) a trustee,
guardian,
receiver,
executor
or
administrator for any other person; (3) a
tenant who sub-lets any building or rented
land in the manner authorised under the
Act; and (4) every person from time to time
deriving title under a landlord. Among
these four categories of persons, brought
within the meaning of "landlord", Mr.
Sharma sought to derive support from the
last category. Even so, that category refers
to a person who derives his title under a
landlord and not under an owner of a
premises. For purposes of the said category
the transferor of the title referred to therein
must fall under any of the categories (1) to
(3). To be a landlord within the meaning of
clause (c) of Section 2 a person need not
necessarily be the owner; in a vast majority
of cases an owner will be a landlord but in
many cases a person other than an owner
may as well be a landlord. It may be that in
a given case the landlord is also an owner
but a landlord under the Act need not be the
owner. It may be noted that for purposes of
the act the legislature has made a
2 All. Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Prayagwati Devi Agrawal & Ors.
219
distinction between an owner of a premises
and a landlord. The Act deals with the
rights and obligations of a landlord only as
defined therein. Ownership of a premises is
immaterial for purposes of the Act.

14. From the above discussion it
follows that such a truncated meaning of
the term "landlord" cannot be imported in
clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act having
regard to the width of the language
employed therein and there is no other
provision in the Act to restrict its meaning
for purposes of Section 13(3)(a) thereof to
an owner of the premises alone. The
appellant has been paying monthly rent of
the premises to the respondent from 1976.
The respondent is thus the landlord of the
premises under the Act and is entitled to
seek relief under Section 13(3)(a) of the
Act. In this view of the matter, we find no
illegality in the order of this High Court
under challenge. The appeal is without
merit and it is liable to be dismissed."

15. In Tapeshwari Mal (supra) I
have held that since the status of the
petitioner as tenant has not been disputed,
thus, there is no legal infirmity in the
impugned order of eviction.

16. Although the landlord has placed
evidence of his ownership on record and
has been upheld by both the courts below
and there is a concurrent finding on record
in this regard, however, I have discussed
the abovenoted law for the reason that the
case of the petitioner holds no ground that
the plaintiff, who had filed the suit is not
the landlord and therefore, the release
application was not maintainable.

17. The law as quoted above clearly
covers the argument of learned counsel for
the petitioner on the question of title and
landlordship both.

18. Insofar as the bonafide need of
Pankaj Agarwal is concerned, it is admitted
that he is in some private job in a shop,
therefore, he is not having any independent
business of his own and therefore, need to
settle him in a business on a shop in dispute
is genuine and bonafide. Insofar as
comparative hardship is concerned, bare
perusal of electricity bill annexed with the
present petition clearly indicates that in
every bill huge arrears of electricity
towards minimum charges have been
indicated, which clearly indicates that the
shop in question was not in use and there
was no material consumption of electricity
units, which may indicate that shop is in
use for business purposes. The appellate
authority has also noticed the fact that no
document whatsoever towards payment of
tax, income tax, bills of purchase, sales bill
and registration of shop have been placed
on record to indicate that infact, any
business is being carried on. That apart, it
is also not in dispute that no effort was
made by the tenant to search any other
alternative
accommodation
during
pendency of the litigation. Therefore, in
view of the settled law on this issue it
cannot be said that the tenant has any
comparative hardship. It is held that this
issue has been correctly decided by the
courts below.

19. I have gone through the rulings
relied on by learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner. For the
discussions made hereinabove, I do not find
that the rulings relied upon by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
are of any help to him.

20. In such view of the matter, I do
not
find
any
jurisdictional
error
or
perversity in the findings recorded and the
conclusion drawn by the courts below.
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Present petition is devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed.

21. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case, subject to filing of an
undertaking by the petitioner-tenant before the
Court below, it is provided that:

(1)
The
tenant-petitioner
shall
handover the peaceful possession of the
premises in question to the landlord-opposite
party on or before 31.7.2021;

(2) The tenant-petitioner shall file the
undertaking before the Court below to the said
effect within two weeks from the date of receipt
of a self verified copy of this order;

(3) The tenant-petitioner shall pay
entire decretal amount, if any, within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.

(4) The tenant-petitioner shall pay
damages @ Rs. 4,000/- per month by 07th day
of every succeeding month and continue to
deposit the same in the Court below till
31.7.2021 or till the date he vacates the
premises, whichever is earlier and the landlord
is at liberty to withdraw the said amount;

(5) In the undertaking the tenantpetitioner shall also state that he will not create
any interest in favour of the third party in the
premises in dispute;

(6) Subject to filing of the said
undertaking, the tenant-petitioner shall not be
evicted from the premises in question till the
aforesaid period;

(7) It is made clear that in case of
default of any of the conditions mentioned
herein-above, the protection granted by this
Court shall stand vacated automatically.

(8) In case, the premises is not
vacated as per the undertaking given by the
petitioner, he shall also be liable for contempt.

22. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)02ILR A220
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 11738 of 2020

All U.P. Stamp Vendors Association
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi, Sri Rajkishore Singh,
Sri N.C. Rajvanshi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
C.S.C., Sri Sumit Kakkar

A. Uttar Pradesh e-Stamping Rules 2013,
Rule 12, 13 - Appointment of Authorized
Collection Center - Constitution of India,
Art. 226 - locus standi - challenge to
proposed
contract
-
Association
of
licenced
stamp
vendors
challenged
agreement
executed
by
the
State
Government
with
the
stock
holding
corporation of India for the appointment
of authorised collection centers under the
E - Stamp Rules - Held - Petitioners are
still not Authorised Collection Centre, as
such they have no right to dictate the
terms of contract & have no locus standi
to challenge the proposed contract under
Article 226 - It is wholly within stamp
vendors choice to apply for appointment
as "Authorised Collection Centre" and
enter
into
contract,
if
they
find
it
beneficial to them - They have no
fundamental or legal right to trade in EStamp. (Para 20)

B. Constitution of India , Art. 226 - Writ of
mandamus - Sale of E stamp - stamp duty
being a tax and sale of physical stamp or