# Ravi Ahuja v. Rajee Kumar & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 1015
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-23
- **Case number:** Rent Control No. 33330 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-ahuja-v-rajee-kumar-anr-47633
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

P.S. Mehra

A. Rent Control - The court is of the view that
the doors of justice will be closed for a litigant
whose case is based upon false or suppression
of material facts. The petition is liable to be
rejected as it suffers from material concealment
of facts. (Para 17)
Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Ravi Ahuja Vs. Rajee Kumar & Anr.
1015
examinations schedule shall be decided by
the University.

III. The petitioner shall be permitted
by the University to appear in the aforesaid
examinations.

IV. The above directions shall be
complied with within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.

89. The writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above.
----------
(2022)01ILR A1015
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Rent Control No. 33330 of 2019

Ravi Ahuja ...Petitioner
Versus
Rajee Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohd. Shakeel

Counsel for the Respondents:
P.S. Mehra

A. Rent Control - The court is of the view that
the doors of justice will be closed for a litigant
whose case is based upon false or suppression
of material facts. The petition is liable to be
rejected as it suffers from material concealment
of facts. (Para 17)
Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. U.O.I. Vs Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148

2. Udham Singh Vs Ram Singh & anr. (2007) 15
SCC 529
3. M/s S.J.S. Business Enterprises Vs St. of
Bihar & ors. MANU/SC/0236/2004: (2004) 7 SCC
166

4. Commissioner of Customs Vs Aafloat Textiles
India Pvt. Ltd. Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 18

5. S.P. Chengalvarya Naidu (Dead) by LRs Vs
Joganath (Dead) by LRs & ors. (1994) 1 SCC 1
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard, Sri Mohd. Shakeel, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S.
Mehra,learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this
Court by means of the present petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India for setting aside judgment and order
dated 05.02.2016(Annexure No.2) passed
by the Prescribed Authority/II Add. Judge
Small Causes Court no.18, Lucknow in
P.A.
Case
No.10/2008(Smt.
Shashi
Srivastava & Another versus Ravi Ahuja),
by means of which the case has been
allowed and the judgment and order dated
17.09.2019 (Annexure No.1) passed by
Additional
District
Judge/Special
Judge(P.C. Act) No.9, Lucknow in Rent
Appeal
No.8/2016(Ravi Ahuja
versus
Rajeev Kumar and another), by means of
which the appeal has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case, for
adjudication of the present petition, are that
the respondents had purchased the land in
dispute
bearing
House
No.
289/323
measuring an area of 1000 sq. ft,Moti
Nagar, P.S. Naka Hindola, Lucknow
through
registered
sale
deed
dated
06.07.2000 from the previous owners and
landlords, Smt. Sushila Devi, Hanuman
Prasad, Satya Narain and Ram Narain. The
entire first floor of the said house was in
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
occupation of the petitioner, as a tenant,
since
before
its
purchase
by
the
respondents. The respondents had moved
an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the
Act No.13 of 1972; Uttar Pradesh Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and
Eviction) Act 1972(hereinafter referred to
as the Act of 1972) on 19.01.2008 before
the prescribed authority seeking release of
the first floor of the house in question from
the petitioner on the ground of their as well
as their family's bonafide need. In the said
application,
the
respondents
had
categorically averred that the petitioner had
illegally occupied two rooms, store and
some covered space on the ground floor,
which was earlier in the tenancy of Nanku
Ram and deemed vacant under provisions
of Section 12 of Act of 1972. As such, the
applicants had filed an application under
16(1)(b) of the Act of 1972 before the City
Magistrate,Rent Control Lucknow.

4. The petitioner had filed a written
statement on 24.04.2008 admitting that the
respondents were the co-owners and
landlords of the house in question and the
petitioner was their tenant with respect to
the entire first floor of the said house. He
had also contended that apart from the first
floor, two rooms on the ground floor were
also in his tenancy. The averments made in
the release application pertaining to bona
fide need and comparative hardship were
denied. After a long time, the petitioner had
filed additional written statement on
24.01.2011, in which interalia it was
averred by him that as per the sale deed
dated 06.07.2000, the respondents had
purchased only 350 sq. ft covered area
which was situated on the ground floor and
since the first floor of the house in question
was not purchased by the respondents, the
release application on their behest was not
maintainable. The respondents filed their
replication denying the averments made in
the written statement and the additional
written statement.

5. After considering the pleadings of
the parties and the evidence adduced before
it, the prescribed authority allowed the
application by means of the judgment and
order dated 05.02.2016 and directed to the
petitioner to hand over the possession of
the property under his tenancy to the
respondents. The petitioner had filed an
appeal which has been dismissed by means
of the judgment and order dated 17.09.2019
by the Additional District Judge. Hence the
present petition has been filed.

6. The first issue raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner was that the
petitioner is not the tenant of the
respondents on the ground that the
petitioner had filed a suit for permanent
injunction, in which the respondents have
filed
written
statement
denying
the
relationship of the landlord and tenant
between the petitioner and the respondents.
It was vehemently denied and it was
submitted that the petitioner has admitted
his tenancy before the prescribed authority.
The respondents purchased 1000 sq. ft. of
House No.329/223, Moti nagar,P.S.Naka
Hindola,Lucknow i.e. the property in
dispute by means of registered sale deed
dated 06.07.2000. The petitioner had filed a
suit
for
permanent
injunction
on
01.09.2009
without
impleading
the
respondents in the suit whereas the
respondents had purchased the property
under the tenancy of the petitioner also.
Subsequently,
the
respondents
were
impleaded in the said suit and they had
filed written statement stating therein that
there is no relationship of landlord and
tenant between the petitioner and the
respondents. It was specifically mentioned
1 All. Ravi Ahuja Vs. Rajee Kumar & Anr.
1017
in paragraph 3 of the written statement that
the defendants no.1 to 4 have not informed
to the respondents about the tenancy of the
plaintiff,
i.e.,
the
present
petitioner.
Therefore it appears that the said plea was
taken due to lack of knowledge as it was
not informed to the respondents by the
sellers.

7. In the proceedings under Section
21(1)(a) of the Act of 1972 before the
prescribed authority, a plea has specifically
been taken in paragraph 3 that the
petitioner is the tenant of the applicants i.e.
the respondents on the first floor. It
comprises of one big room, one store and
kitchen, two verandahs, and one half store
and terrace. The petitioner in his written
statement has admitted in paragraph 4 of
the written statement that the answering
opposite party i.e. the petitioner is tenant of
entire first floor portion of the property in
question alongwith two rooms on the
ground floor in the aforesaid building on a
monthly rent of Rs.85/-.In the written
statement it has been admitted in paragraph
6 that the opposite party is the legal tenant
of House No289/323,Moti Nagar, P.S. Naka
Hindola, Lucknow of entire first floor. It
has further been admitted in paragraph 10
and 18 of the written statement. The
petitioner himself filed his affidavit of
evidence. In the said affidavit also, the
petitioner had not denied the tenancy. It has
further been stated that the respondents
have got released the ground floor of the
house under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act of
1972 in Case No.57/62/116/210. Therefore
the petitioner himself has admitted the
tenancy.

8. It is a settled proposition of law
that the admission is the best piece of
evidence. Once the petitioner admitted the
tenancy, the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner is misconceived
and not tenable and liable to be rejected.
The findings recorded by the prescribed
authority and the appellate authority in this
regard does not suffer from any illegality or
error.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India versus Ibrahim
Uddin; (2012) 8 SCC 148 has held that the
admission is the best piece of substantive
evidence that an opposite party can rely
upon, though not conclusive, is decisive of
the matter, unless successfully withdrawn
or proved erroneous.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Udham Singh versus Ram Singh
and another;(2007) 15 SCC 529 has held
that admission is the best evidence against
the person who is said to have made it.

11. The next issue raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner was that the
respondents have purchased only a part of
the portion of House No.289/323, Moti
Nagar, P.S. Naka, Lucknow and the portion
under the tenancy of the petitioner does not
fall in the said portion because he had
purchased only 1000 sq. ft in which 350 sq.
ft at ground floor is the covered area and
the first floor has not been purchased by
him. It was vehemently denied by learned
counsel for the petitioner and it was
submitted that the portion in the tenancy of
petitioner was also included in the portion
purchased
by
the
respondents.
The
boundaries of the area purchased by the
respondents has been given in the sale deed
executed in favour of the respondents. The
petitioner has not denied the boundaries of
the area purchased by the respondents
given in the sale deed. The petitioner is not
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
party to the sale deed and he is also not
claiming himself to be the owner of the
house. Therefore he has no right of
questioning the sale deed. This Court also
does not find that only the lower portion
was purchased by the respondents. The
petitioner has also failed to demonstrate
that the portion in his tenancy is not
included in 1000 sq. ft. purchased by the
respondents. Therefore the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and not tenable. The prescribed
authority has also recorded a categorical
finding that the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner is not tenable.

12. The next contention submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner was that
there was no bona fide need of the
petitioner as the petitioner has also got
released the portion of the house which was
earlier in the tenancy of Nanku Ram is misconceived and not tenable. The respondents
have shown in their application under
Section 21(1)(a) that the respondents i.e.
the husband and wife, their two daughters,
who are studying in M.A. and M.B.A.
respectively and one son studying in Class
11 are residing in the said house. They have
only room in the basement which is used as
godown and two rooms of average size,
kitchen and small verandah on the ground
floor,
which
have
fallen
short
and
insufficient for the increased growing
family
members
of
the
respondents.
Therefore they need the portion under the
tenancy of the petitioner as their growing
children require one room each. One room
is required for entertaining the visitors, one
room for the guests and tutor room. The
petitioner had unauthorizedly occupied the
portion of the ground floor earlier in the
tenancy of Nanku Ram. The respondents
had filed application for release of the said
portion and the city Magistrate passed an
order on 03.04.2012, whereby the portion
on the ground floor of the house in
question,
illegally
occupied
by
the
petitioner was released in favour of the
respondents. It was only after the petitioner
contested it upto the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and after passing of the order by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court,he had vacated the
said portion and handed over it to the
respondents. The said portion is not
sufficient looking to the need of the
respondents. The petitioner has not denied
the number of family members of the
respondents and he could also not deny the
need of the respondents. He has only taken
a plea that the suit has been filed only to
get the possession and enhancement of rent.
Therefore the petitioner has not denied the
bonafide need of the respondents and he
has also failed to show that the respondents
have any other space in the city of lucknow,
which is available for them. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that the respondents
have successfully proved their case and
bonafide requirement of the portion, in the
tenancy of the petitioner.

13. Section 21(1)(a) of the Act of
1972 provides that the prescribed authority
may, on an application of the landlord in
that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant
from the building under tenancy or any
specified part thereof if it is satisfied that
the building is bona fide required either in
its existing form or after demolition and
new construction by the landlord for
occupation by himself or any member of
his family, or any person for whose benefit
it is held by him, either for residential
purposes or for purposes of any profession,
trade or calling, or where the landlord is the
trustee of a public charitable trust, for the
objects
of
the
trust. Therefore,
the
application of the respondents has rightly
been allowed by the prescribed authority
1 All. Ravi Ahuja Vs. Rajee Kumar & Anr.
1019
and the appeal filed by the petitioner has
also been dismissed in accordance with
law.

14. The next issue raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner was that the
petitioner had moved an application for
spot
inspection
on
23.05.2014
for
ascertaining the truth, which was dismissed
by means of the order dated 23.08.2014
with the observation that after adducing the
entire evidence of the parties, if this Court
finds that local inspection is necessary then
appropriate order will be passed but
thereafter without passing any order in
pursuance of the order dated 23.06.2014
and
ascertaining
the
real
truth
of
relationship of landlord and tenant and
extent of accommodation whether covered
from sale deed or not, the learned trial court
allowed the release application. It was
vehemently opposed by learned counsel for
the respondents and it was submitted that
subsequently, the petitioner had moved an
application for local inspection before
prescribed authority and then before
appellate authority, which were dismissed.
The petitioner had approached this Court
and the writ petition was also dismissed but
all these facts have not been disclosed in
the present petition. Therefore it suffers
from material concealment of facts and
taking a false plea.

15. The petitioner had filed an
application
for
local
inspection
on
23.05.2014. The said application was
rejected by means of the order dated
23.08.2014
on
the
ground
that
the
respondents had filed their evidence long
back and inspite of last opportunity being
given for filing his evidence, the petitioner
failed to file the same. Instead he moved an
application
for
spot
inspection.
The
prescribed authority held that the
petitioner cannot be permitted to collect the
evidence by local inspection and after the
evidence of the petitioner was over, if need
be, appropriate orders of local inspection
may be passed.

16. The petitioner moved another
application
on
19.09.2014
for
local
inspection. After filing of the objection by
the respondents, the said application was
also rejected by means of the order dated
17.04.2015. During pendency of the appeal
the
petitioner
had
again
moved
an
application for inspection on 14.03.2016,
which was rejected by means of the order
dated
28.10.2016.
The
petitioner
challenged the same before this Court in
petition
Rent
Control
No.28539
of
2016(Ravi Ahuja versus Rajeev Kumar &
Anr.).The said petition was dismissed by
the judgment and order dated 18.04.2018
upholding
the
order
passed
by
the
apppellate authority on the application for
inspection on 28.10.2016. Therefore this
issue was final between the parties and is
not considerable in this petition. However
the petitioner has not disclosed all these
facts in this petition and tried to allege that
prescribed authority has allowed his release
application without complying its own
order dated 24.04.2014 passed on the
application of the petitioner for local
inspection. Therefore this Court is of the
view that the present petition suffers from
material concealment of fact and infact
taking a false plea which is not available to
the petitioner.

17. This Court is of the view that
doors of justice will be closed for a litigant
whose case is based on false or suppression
of material facts. Fraud and justice never
dwell together. They are opposite to each
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
other. Concealment and suppression of
material facts is nothing but a fraud to
obtain the order in his favour. It is a settled
proposition of law that one who has not
come with clean hands is not entitled for
any relief. Therefore on this ground itself
the petitioner is not entitled for any relief or
interference by this Court.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises vs
State
Of
Bihar
And
Ors;
MANU/SC/0236/2004 / (2004) 7 SCC 166
has held that as a general rule, suppression
of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies
such litigant from obtaining any relief. This
rule has been evolved out of the need of the
courts to deter a litigant from abusing the
process of court by deceiving it.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the
case of Commissioner of Customs Versus
Aafloat Textiles India Pvt. Ltd. others;
(2009)
11
SCC 18,
has
held
that
suppression of a material document would
also amount to a fraud on Court. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs
Versus Joganath (Dead) by LRs and
others; (1994) 1 SCC 1, has held that
"fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical
or
temporal"
observed
Chief
Justice
Edward Coke of England about three
centuries ago and a judgment or decree
obtained by playing fraud on the court is a
nullity and non est in the eyes of law.

20. In view of above, this Court is of
the considered view that the impugned
orders have rightly been passed by
reasoned
and
speaking
orders
after
considering the pleadings of the parties and
evidence on record. There is no illegality or
error in the impugned orders. The petition
is misconceived, lacks merit and suffers
from material concealment and taking false
plea. It is liable to be dismissed with cost.

21. The petition is, accordingly,
dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/-.

22. The petitioner shall vacate the
portion in his tenancy and hand over it to
the respondents alongwith the aforesaid
cost of Rs.20,000/- within a period of six
weeks from today.
----------
(2022)01ILR A1020
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ Tax No. 738 of 2021

M/s Co-operative Co. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Namit Srivastava, Shashi Nandan Sr.
Advocate, Sri Manoj Kumar Ahuja

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Avinash Chandra Tripathi

A. Natural Justice - Opportunity of hearing
- The Court held that non-furnishing of the
inspection
report
resulted
in
denial
of
opportunity to the petitioner to submit a proper
reply to the show cause notice. (Para 23)

In the present case, FIR was lodged against the
petitioner on finding gross irregularities and
violations to the conditions of the license and of
the Act and Rules. Consequent to which show
cause notice-cum-order was issued to the
petitioner cancelling the license of the petitioner.
The Court did not find any discrepancy in
the cancellation of license after issuance
of show cause notice-cum-order based on
FIR and inspection. (Para 14)