# Rajpal Singh alias Rajveer Singh v. Abdul Haq Khan and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 220
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-02-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5594 of 2002
- **Bench:** A.K. Yog
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajpal-singh-alias-rajveer-singh-v-abdul-haq-khan-and-another-39800
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972-
Section 22 power of the Appellate Court-
finding
of
fact
recorded
by
the
Prescribed
Authority-
can
not
be
interfered by the appellate authority-
unless
there
is
some
material
irregularity.
Held- Para 14
It is now well settled that the Appellate
Court while reversing the judgment of
lower court must deal with the reasoning
given by the court below. Whether land
lord had bona fide and real intention to
leave Delhi and to settle at Bulandshahr
in the context of the circumstances that
his wife was treated at Delhi, was a
relevant consideration and on which the
Prescribed Authority has placed reliance.
Hence it was incumbent upon the
Prescribed Authority to deal with the
said aspect of the matter and to record a
finding after considering the relevant
material with reference to the same in
absence of it, the finding recorded by the
Appellate Court is vitiated which cannot
be sustained.
Case law discussed:
1996 (2) All.R.C. 479
1All] Rajpal Singh alias Rajveer Singh V. Abdul Haq Khan and another
221

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
220
may be directed to go to the revenue
Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
Sri
Jokhan
Prasad,
learned
counsel for the petitioners has argued that
in view of the law, which will depend on
the allegations in plaint and also the relief
clause and in view of the recent Supreme
Court decision reported in J.T. 2001
(Vol.2) S.C., 573 - Shri Ram and
another Versus Ist Additional District
Judge and others, wherein the Supreme
Court has affirmed the decision of Full
Bench decision reported in 1989 R.D.,
21- Ram Pradarath and others Versus
IInd
Additional
District
Judge,
Sultanpur and others, the law laid down
by Supreme Court and after going through
the relief clause, the view taken by the
revisional court is not correct and suffers
from the manifest error of law.

5. In view of what has been stated
above, it is abundantly clear that the suit
is cognisable by the civil Court and in this
view of the matter, the order dated
5.11.1984,
Annexure-3
to
the
writ
petition, passed by the revisional Court is
liable to be set aside and is hereby
quashed.

With the aforesaid observation, the
writ petition is allowed. There will,
however, be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5594 of 2002

Rajpal Singh alias Rajveer Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Abdul Haq Khan and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Atiq Ahmad Khan

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972-
Section 22 power of the Appellate Court-
finding
of
fact
recorded
by
the
Prescribed
Authority-
can
not
be
interfered by the appellate authority-
unless
there
is
some
material
irregularity.
Held- Para 14
It is now well settled that the Appellate
Court while reversing the judgment of
lower court must deal with the reasoning
given by the court below. Whether land
lord had bona fide and real intention to
leave Delhi and to settle at Bulandshahr
in the context of the circumstances that
his wife was treated at Delhi, was a
relevant consideration and on which the
Prescribed Authority has placed reliance.
Hence it was incumbent upon the
Prescribed Authority to deal with the
said aspect of the matter and to record a
finding after considering the relevant
material with reference to the same in
absence of it, the finding recorded by the
Appellate Court is vitiated which cannot
be sustained.
Case law discussed:
1996 (2) All.R.C. 479
1All] Rajpal Singh alias Rajveer Singh V. Abdul Haq Khan and another
221
(Delivered by Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned
counsel for the Petitioner as well as Sri
Atiq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for
the contesting respondent no. 1.

2. The Petitioner, who happened to
be
the
tenant
in
the
residential
accommodation popularly known as Haq
Lodge, situate at Civil Lines, Near City
Board,
Office/Civil
Hospital-
Bulandshahr City, District- Bulandshahr,
seeks
to
challenge
the
impugned
judgment and order dated 10-12-2001
(Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition) passed
by the Appellate Authority in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Section 22 of U.P.
Urban Building (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U.P. Act
No. XIII of 1972 for short called 'the
Act', allowing Rent Control Appeal No.4
of 1995. Abdul Haq Khan versus Rajpal
Singh alias Rajveer Singh and others,
allowed the release application under
section 21(1)(a) of the Act, initially
rejected by the Prescribed Authority
under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, vide,
judgment and order dated 10.3.1995
(Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition).

3. The release application dated
7.12.1992 under section 21 (1) (a) of the
Act was filed by the landlord- Abdul Haq
Khan, the respondent no. 1 primarily on
the allegation that he retired in the year
1988 as Professor from Jamia Milia
University at Delhi and required the house
for his own need. It was also mentioned
that original tenant Jai Pal Singh died on
6.12.1991 and petitioner alone lived in the
tenanted accommodation, hence in the
release application petitioner alone was
impleaded and other heirs of deceased
tenant were not impleaded. The release
application was registered as P.A. Case
no. 7 of 1991.

4. The tenant Petitioner filed
objection against the release application
contending, inter-alia amongst others, that
the house in question was not genuinely
and bonafide required by the landlord,
since he had no intention to settle at
Bulandshahr
and
reside
in
the
accommodation in question, particularly
in view of the fact that after retirement
from the University in the year 1988,
landlord continued to reside at Delhi. The
tenant also alleged that landlord had other
accommodation at his ancestor's village
Jalal Nagar, District- Bulandshahr and
also at Delhi in the name of his daughter.

5. The landlord denied to have any
house of his own at Delhi. The Prescribed
Authority held that landlord had ancestral
residential
accommodation
in
his
ancestors village at Jalalpur, District-
Bulanshahr and that he lived at Delhi in
the house belonging to his daughter. The
Prescribed Authority apart from the above
also found that wife of the landlord was
under going medical treatment at Delhi
for last seven years and that the landlord
under the said circumstance, cannot afford
to shift to Bulandshahr. The Prescribed
Authority held that landlord had no bona
fide need or genuine intention to settle at
Bulandshahr.
On
the
question
of
comparative hardship also, the Prescribed
Authority held in favour of the tenant.

6. Feeling aggrieved landlord filed
Rent Control Appeal No. 4 of 1995-
Abdul Haq Khan versus Raj Pal Singh
alias Rajveer Singh and others under
section 22 of the Act.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
222

7. During pendency of the appeal,
landlord initially filed certain documents
by way of additional evidence which were
taken on record under the Appellate
Court's order dated 5.2.1996 (quoted in
para 9 of the petition).

8. Landlord again filed certain
documents paper no.25 Ga and 27 Ga for
being taken on record as additional
evidence. Order sheet of 10.5.1996 of the
appellate
Court
shows
that
these
documents be placed before the Court on
the date fixed.

9. The petitioner contends that
neither these documents were admitted on
record nor opportunity was given to the
tenant for filing evidence in rebuttal.

10. The case is being decided finally
at the admission stage itself on the basis
of the record of the petition itself as
agreed and consented by the learned
counsels for the parties.

11.

The
appellate
authority
discussed the evidence on record and
came to the conclusion that no house
existed, at the relevant time, in ancestral
village, the landlord had no occasion to
settle there and the landlord could not be
directed to go and settle in the village.
The Appellate authority found that house
no. 633 Zakir Nagar, Delhi belonged to
his daughter whose children were grown
up. The Appellate Court further noted that
the tenant- petitioner had failed to file
evidence to prove that house no. 399, Gali
No. 9 near Zamia Milia University, Zakir
Nagar, New Delhi (wherein the landlord
was presently residing) belonged to the
landlord and that the tenant had failed to
file any substantial clinching evidence
from Nagar Nigam etc. in support of his
case.

12.

The
Appellate
Authority,
however, in para 20 of the appellate
judgment mentioned that there was no
dispute that the landlord had retired in
1988 as Professor in Zamia Milia
University, New Delhi and in 1989 he had
to leave the house belonging to the
employer. The Appellate Authority, from
this circumstance, came to the conclusion
that the landlord required the house in
question for him and his family members
and that his need was bona fide and
genuine and consequently, finding on the
question of bona fide need recorded by
the Prescribed Authority was reversed.

13.

The
Appellate
Authority,
however, did not at all consider the
circumstance and the material on record
on which the Prescribed Authority had
relied upon, namely the illness and
treatment for last seven years of the wife
of the landlord at Delhi.

14. It is now well settled that the
Appellate Court while reversing the
judgment of lower Court must deal with
the reasoning given by the court below.
Whether landlord had bona fide and real
intention to leave Delhi and to settle at
Bulandshahr in the context of the
circumstance that his wife was treated at
Delhi, was a relevant consideration and
on which the Prescribed Authority has
placed reliance. Hence it was incumbent
upon the Prescribed Authority to deal
with the said aspect of the matter and to
record a finding after considering the
relevant material with reference to the
same. In absence of it, the finding
recorded by the Appellate Court is
vitiated which cannot be sustained.
1All] Rajpal Singh alias Rajveer Singh V. Abdul Haq Khan and another
223

15. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner Sri Pradeep Kumar has placed
reliance on a decision in the case of Gyan
Chand (deceased) by Sheela Devi and
others L.Rs. versus Additional District
Judge, Budaun and others 1996 (2)
Allahabad Rent Cases page 479. Para 23
of the said reported judgment reads:

"......The Appellate Authority did
not record the reasons for reversal of the
findings
recorded
by
Prescribed
Authority. It has not been stated as to why
the Appellate Authority did not agree with
the findings recorded by the Prescribed
Authority. Therefore, the impugned order
passed by it, is contrary to the provisions
of sub-rule (7) of the Rule 34 of the Rules
framed under the Act......"

In para-8 of the same reported
judgment, the learned Single Judge
observed that:
"........The
Appellate
Authority
while confirming, varying or rescinding
the order, will have to act judicially and in
accordance with law. The Appellate
Authority will have to record the reason
for passing the said order particularly
while passing an order of reversal."

16. In the aforesaid reported case,
the learned Single Judge also relied upon
a decision in the case of Ram Niwas
Pandey versus VIII Additional District
Judge Kanpur and others, 1982 (1)
A.R.C. 246, wherein the Court held:

".......The Appellate Court was
recording a finding of reversal as such it
was to take into consideration all the
relevant facts and factors, which were
taken into consideration by the Prescribed
Authority."

17. The learned Single Judge again
referred to another decision in the case of
Mohd. Nanhey Mian versus IVth
Additional District Judge, Aligarh 1982
(2) A.R.C. 527 and quoted:

"......The Lower Appellate Court
appears to have made a mess of the entire
things, it after citing certain cases, came
to an abrupt conclusion that prima facie
the need of the son of the landlord was
established. When he was reversing the
judgment of the Prescribed Authority, it
was incumbent upon him to meet the
reasons recorded by the Prescribed
Authority, while deciding the case."

18. In the present case as noted, the
Appellate Authority did not categorically
refer to the reasoning recorded by the
Prescribed Authority and there is not even
an iota of material to show that Appellate
Authority
before
recording
contrary
finding on the basis of same material, had
proceeded to decide the case after
applying its mind to the reasons given by
the Prescribed Authority.

19. The landlord retired in the year
1988 and after four years in the year
1992, filed release application without
pleading the cause of delay in filing
release application or specifying the
circumstances for not moving it promptly
on or before 1988, though it was an
important and relevance circumstance to
find out whether the landlord had bona
fide and genuine intention to settle at
Bulandshahr.

20. The Appellate Court has not at
all considered and applied its mind to the
said aspect of the case.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
224

21. In view of the above, impugned
judgment and order dated 10.12.2001
(Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition) passed
by the Additional District Judge (Court
No.3) Bulandshahr in Rent Control
Appeal No. 4 of 1995 (Abdul Haq Khan
versus Rajpal Singh alias Rajveer Singh
and others) suffers from manifest error
apparent on the face of record and cannot
be sustained. Consequently, impugned
judgment and order dated10.12.2001
passed by Additional District Judge
(Court No.3), Bulandshahr in Rent
Control Appeal No. 4 of 1995- Abdul Haq
Khan versus Rajpal Singh alias Raj Veer
Singh and others, is quashed, and the case
is remanded to the lower Appellate Court
for
deciding
the
matter
afresh
in
accordance with law and keeping the
above observations in mind. The parties
shall have right to raise their grievance, if
any, including the opportunity to meet the
additional evidence, if no opportunity was
afforded in the past to meet the same.

22. The Appellate Authority shall
decide the rent control appeal, in
pursuance of the present judgment, as
expeditiously
as
possible,
preferably
within six months from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this judgment.

23. Considering the facts of the case,
I direct that the rent control appeal in
question shall be heard by the concerned
District Judge himself.

24. The petition stands allowed
subject to the observations and directions
made above.

No order as to costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 4 FEBRUARY, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3009 of 2002

R.K. Gupta

...Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman/Managing Director and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vivek Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anil Mehrotra
Sri S.P. Mehrotra

Constitution of India- Article 226- the
petitioner who was posted under U.P.
Rajya Vidyut Nigam Ltd., continues to
remain on deputation in the corporation
despite his absorption in U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd.

Held- Para 9

The
petitioner
in
fact
been
given
promotion and hence we see no reason
to interfere with the impugned orders.
Moreover, this is not a fit case for
exercise of discretion of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case referred
1977(2) SLR 551
1965 AIR SCR 241

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
against the impugned order of transfer
dated 18.12.2001 (Annexure-1 to this
petition) and the relieving order dated
7.1.2002
(Annexure-2
to
this
writ
petition).