# S M Shahnawaz v. Bachchu Lal

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 854
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-22
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 2347 of 2023
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/s-m-shahnawaz-v-bachchu-lal-51363
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Buildings
(Regulation
of
Letting,
Rent
and
Eviction) Act, 1972- General Clauses
Act, 1897 -Section 6(c)-judgment and
order filed- said decree became final between
the parties- petitioner filed execution case -
rejected on the ground that New Rent Control
Act ,2021 came w.e.f. 11.01.2021-therefore,
in light of Section 38 of Act, 2021, the Court
has no jurisdiction to decide the case and
accordingly,
dismissed-Hence,
present
petition.- Section 6(c) of General Clauses Act,
1897 provides that unless a different intention
appears- repeal would not affect any right,
privilege, obligation or liability acquired-
Section 36 read with Section 46 of Act, 2021
is having power of execution of orders, which
are passed under the provisions of Act, 2021,
meaning thereby order passed under Act,
12 All. S M Shahnawaz Vs. Bachchu Lal
855
1972 shall be executed only under the
provisions of Act, 1972-Section 46 of Act,
2021 also clearly provides that old proceeding
under Act, 1972 shall continue under the
provisions of Act, 1972 upto the logical
ending.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
relationship at a very belated stage, it can
lead to serious consequences. It will open
the scope for imputing criminality to such
long term relationship after turning sour, as
such an allegation can be made even at a
belated stage to drag a person in the
juggernaut of stringent criminal process.
There is always a danger of attributing
criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed
civil relationship of which the Court must
also be mindful.

34 Keeping in mind the aforesaid
observation of the Court, in the present
facts of the case, the relationship between
the applicant and opposite party no.2 was
not prolonged physical relationship as the
opposite party no.2 came to know the
applicant as she was also pursuing her
studies from the same University as that by
the applicant. After completion of his
studies and passage of nearly ten years the
applicant came to her residence and giving
false promise to marry, forces her for
physical relationship, thus, it cannot be said
to be prolonged physical relationship.

35. So far as the consent of the
victim is concerned, this Court finds that
the consent of victim in the present case is
based on misconception of fact. Thus, such
consent is immaterial as it is not a
voluntary
consent.
The
applicant
established physical relation with the
victim giving a false promise to marry her,
hence from the very inception, the consent
given by the victim is a result of a false
promise to marry her. Such false promise
amounts to commission of rape and the
offence of rape is made out against the
applicant.

36. In view of the above
discussions and deliberations, the present
application
fails
and
is,
accordingly,
dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.

37. The Court would like to
appreciate the hard work put in by Ms.
Shubhangi Jain, Research Associate, who
has drawn attention to detail and the same
shown in her work of providing legal
assistance in this matter.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 854
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ - A No. 2347 of 2023

S M Shahnawaz ...Petitioner
Versus
Bachchu Lal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.S. Chauhan

Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Buildings
(Regulation
of
Letting,
Rent
and
Eviction) Act, 1972- General Clauses
Act, 1897 -Section 6(c)-judgment and
order filed- said decree became final between
the parties- petitioner filed execution case -
rejected on the ground that New Rent Control
Act ,2021 came w.e.f. 11.01.2021-therefore,
in light of Section 38 of Act, 2021, the Court
has no jurisdiction to decide the case and
accordingly,
dismissed-Hence,
present
petition.- Section 6(c) of General Clauses Act,
1897 provides that unless a different intention
appears- repeal would not affect any right,
privilege, obligation or liability acquired-
Section 36 read with Section 46 of Act, 2021
is having power of execution of orders, which
are passed under the provisions of Act, 2021,
meaning thereby order passed under Act,
12 All. S M Shahnawaz Vs. Bachchu Lal
855
1972 shall be executed only under the
provisions of Act, 1972-Section 46 of Act,
2021 also clearly provides that old proceeding
under Act, 1972 shall continue under the
provisions of Act, 1972 upto the logical
ending.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hanumat Singh Vs Phuna; 1969 0 Supreme
(Raj) 208

2. Karnataka housing board VS Nagamani;
2019 0 supreme(SC)538

3. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd & anr. Vs Ambience
island apartment Owners & ors.2021 2 SCC
163

4. Pratap Narain Agarwal Vs Ragho Prasad &
ors. AIR 1970 ALLAHABAD 15

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahesh
Sharma, advocate holding brief of Sri G.S.
Chauhan,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent.

2. Present petition has been filed with
following relief;

"(I) Issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
21.12.2022
passed
by
Civil
Judge,
Mauranipur, District Jhansi in Misc. Case
No. 07 of 2022 (S.M. Shahnawaz Vs.
Bachchu Lal) to this writ petition."

3. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner has filed P.A. Case No. 2 of 2016
under the provisions of U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to
as "Act, 1972"), which was allowed vide
judgment and decree dated 21.12.2021. The
said decree became final between the
parties. Thereafter, petitioner has filed
execution case being Civil Misc. Case No.
07 of 2022 before Civil Judge, Mauranipur,
Jhansi to execute the judgement and decree
dated 21.12.2021. Learned Civil Judge has
rejected the execution case on the ground
that New Rent Control Act i.e. Uttar
Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises
Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to
as "Act, 2021") came w.e.f. 11.01.2021.
Therefore, in light of Section 38 of Act,
2021, this Court has no jurisdiction to
decide the case and accordingly, dismissed.
Hence, present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that undisputedly, case was filed
under the provisions of Act, 1972 and also
decreed. Therefore, execution proceeding
shall only lie under the provisions of Old
Act i.e. Act, 1972, which he had filed. He
also pointed out that Section 36 of Act,
2021 provides that Rent Authority shall
execute only those orders, which were
passed under the provisions of this Act i.e.
Act, 2021, therefore, order is ex facie bad.
In support of his contention, he has placed
reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court
in the matter of Hanumat Singh Vs.
Phuna; 1969 0 Supreme (Raj) 208.

5. Per contra, Sri Mahesh Sharma,
advocate holding brief of Sri G.S. Chauhan,
learned counsel for the respondent opposed
and submitted that execution case is not the
continuance of suit proceeding, but it
would be treated as fresh suit, therefore, it
cannot be filed under the provisions of Old
Act. He also invited attention of the Court
to Section 34 of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021,
which provides that Rent Authority is
having power of Civil Court for execution
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of order. In support of his contention, he
has placed reliance upon the judgment of
Apex Court as well as judgment of Full
Bench of this Court in the matters of
Karnataka housing board VS. Nagamani;
2019 0 supreme(SC)538, Infrastructure
pvt. Ltd and another vs. Ambience island
apartment Owners And others 2021 2 SCC
163 & Pratap narain agarwal vs. ragho
prasad and other AIR 1970 ALLAHABAD
15.

6.
I
have
considered
the
rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the records, Act,
1972, Act, 2021 as well as judgments relied
upon.

7. Section 36 of Act, 2021 is relevant
to decide the present controversy and the
same is being quoted below;

"36. Execution of order.-36.
(1)The Rent Authority shall, on an
application filed by any party, execute an
order of a Rent Tribunal or any other order
made under this Act, in such manner as
may be prescribed, by-

(a) delivering possession of the
premises to the person in whose favour the
decision has been made; or

(b) attaching one or more bank
accounts of the opposite party for the
purpose of recovering the amount specified
in such order; or

(c) appointing any advocate or
any other competent person including
officers of the Rent Authority or local
administration or local body for the
execution of such order; or

(d) attachment of salary and
allowance of the opposite party; or

(e) attachment and sale of the
movable or immovable property of the
opposite party

(2) The Rent Authority may take
help from the local police for execution of
the final orders:

Provided that no applicant shall
obtain help of the police unless he pays
such costs as may be decided by the Rent
Authority.

(3) The Rent Authority shall
conduct the execution proceedings, in
relation to its order or an order of a Rent
Tribunal or any other order passed under
this Act, in a summary manner and dispose
of the application for execution made under
this section within a period of thirty days
from the date of service of notice on the
opposite party"

8. From perusal of Section 36(1) of
Act, 2021, it is apparently clear that Rent
Authority under this Act is having
jurisdiction to execute only those orders,
which are passed by Rent Tribunal or any
other order made under this Act i.e. Act,
2021.

9. I have also perused the Section 34
of Act, 2021 relied upon by learned counsel
for respondent and the same is quoted
below;

"34. Powers of Rent Authority
and Rent Tribunal.- (1) The Rent Authority
and
the
Rent
Tribunal
shall,
for
discharging their functions under this Act,
have the same powers as are vested in a
Civil Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (Act. no. 5 of 1908) for
the purposes of,-

(a) summoning and enforcing the
attendance of any person and examining
him on oath,

(b) requiring the discovery and
production of documents,

(c)
issuing
commission
for
examination of the witnesses or documents,
12 All. S M Shahnawaz Vs. Bachchu Lal
857

(d) issuing commission for local
investigation,

(e)
receiving
evidence
on
affidavits,

(1) dismissing an application or
appeal fer default or deciding it ex-parte;

(g) setting aside any order of
dismissal of any application or appeal for
default or any other order passed by it exparte:

(h) any other matter, which may
be prescribed.

(2) Any proceeding before the
Rent Authority or Rent Tribunal shall be
deemed to be a judicial proceeding within
the meaning of sections 193 and 228 and
for the purpose of section 196 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (Act. no. 45 of 1860);
and the Rent Authority and the Rent
Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil
Court for the purposes of section 195 and
Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Act. no. 2 of 1974).

(3) For the purposes of holding
any inquiry or discharging any duty under
this Act, the Rent Authority may-

(a) after giving not less than
twenty-four hours' notice in writing, enter
and inspect or authorize any officer
subordinate to it, to enter and inspect any
premises at any time between sunrise and
sunset,

(b) by a written order, require
any person to produce for its inspection
such books or documents relevant to the
inquiry, at such time and at such place as
may be specified in the order

(4) The Rent Authority may, if it
thinks fit, appoint one or more persons
having special knowledge of the matter
under consideration as an assessor or
valuer to advise it in the proceeding before
it.

(5) Any clerical or arithmetical
mistake any order passed by the Rent

Authority or any other error
arising out of any accidental omission may,
at any time, be corrected by the Rent
Authority on an application received by it
in this behalf from any of the parties or
otherwise

(6) The Rent Authority may
exercise
the
powers
of
a
Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class for the
recovery of the fine under the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Act. no. 2 of 1974) and the Rent Authority
shall be deemed to be a Magistrate under
the said Code for the purposes of such
recovery

(7) An order made by a Rent
Authority or an order passed in appeal
under this Chapter shall be executable by
the Rent Authority as a decree of a Civil
Court and for this purpose, the Rent
Authority shall have the powers of a Civil
Court.

(8) The Rent Authority may set
aside or recall any order passed ex-parte if
the aggrieved party files an application and
satisfies it that the notice was not duly
served or that he was prevented by any
sufficient cause from appearing when the
case was taken up for hearing.

(9) Save as otherwise expressly
provided in this Act, every order made by
the Rent Authority shall, subject to decision
in appeal, be final and shall not be called
in question in any original suit, application
or execution proceedings."

10. No doubt, Rent Authority is
having same power vested under the
provisions of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, but Section 34 of Act, 2021 shall
always be read with Section 36 of Act,
2021, which clearly provides that Rent
Authority shall execute an order of Rent
Tribunal or any order made under this Act.
In the present case, undisputedly, neither
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any order has been passed under the
provisions of Act, 2021 nor proceeding was
initiated under the provisions of Act, 1972.

11. In present dispute, application was
filed under Section 21 of Act, 1972 before
the Prescribed Authority defined in Section
2(e) of Act, 1972. Therefore, in light of
Section 36 of Act, 2021, Rent Authority is
having no jurisdiction to execute the order
passed by Prescribed Authority under the
provisions of Act, 1972.

12. For proper adjudication of this
issue, I have also perused Section 46 of
Act, 2021, which is being quoted below;

"46. Repeal and savings.- (1)
The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 (U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972) and,
the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy (Second) Ordinance,
2021 (U.P. Ordinance No. 3 of 2021) is
hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal,
all cases and other proceedings under the
Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 (U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972)
pending, at the commencement of this Act,
shall be continued and disposed of in
accordance with the provisions of the said
Act of 1972 as if that Act had continued to
be in force and this Act had not been
promulgated.

(3) All cases and proceedings
relating to any dispute between a landlord
and a tenant under any law other than the
law repealed by sub-section (1) pending
before the Civil Court or in appeal before
any
other
Court
on
the
date
of
commencement of this Act, in respect of the
premises to which this Act applies, shall be
continued before such Court and disposed
of in accordance with such applicable law.

(4) Notwithstanding such repeal
anything done or any action taken under
the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Ordinance, 2021 (U.P.
Ordinance no. 2 of 2021) and the Uttar
Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises
Tenancy (Second) Ordinance, 2021 (U.P.
Ordinance no. 3 of 2021) shall be deemed
to have been done or taken under the
corresponding provisions of this Act."

13. Section 46 of Act, 2021 clearly
provides
that
all
cases
and
other
proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972) pending, at the commencement of
this Act, shall be continued and disposed of
in accordance with law with the provisions
of the said Act of 1972 as if that Act had
continued to be in force and this Act had
not been promulgated, meaning thereby,
eviction proceeding under the provisions of
Act, 1972 shall also obtain its logical
ending under the provisions of Act, 1972.

14. I have also perused the Section 6
of The General Clauses Act, 1897 and the
same is being quoted below;

"6. Effect of repeal.-.Where this
Act, or any [Central Act] or Regulation
made after the commencement of this Act,
repeals any enactment hitherto made or
hereafter to be made, then, unless a
different intention appears, the repeal shall
not

(a) revive anything not in force or
existing at the time at which the repeal
takes effect;or

(b) affect the previous operation
of any enactment so repealed or anything
duly done or suffered thereunder; or
12 All. S M Shahnawaz Vs. Bachchu Lal
859

(c) affect any right, privilege,
obligation or liability acquired, accrued or
incurred under any enactment so repealed;
or

(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture
or punishment incurred in respect of any
offence committed against any enactment
so repealed; or

(e) affect any investigation, legal
proceeding or remedy in respect of any
such right, privilege, obligation, liability,
penalty,
forfeiture
or
punishment
as
aforesaid;

and any such investigation, legal
proceeding or remedy may be instituted,
continued or enforced, and any such
penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be
imposed as if the repealing Act or
Regulation had not been passed."

15. Section 6(c) of General Clauses
Act, 1897 clearly provides that unless a
different intention appears, repeal would
not affect any right, privilege, obligation
or liability acquired. In the present case,
intention of legislation is very clear that
Section 36 read with Section 46 of Act,
2021 is having power of execution of
orders, which are passed under the
provisions
of
Act,
2021,
meaning
thereby order passed under Act, 1972
shall be
executed only under
the
provisions of Act, 1972.

16.
I
have
also
perused
the
judgments
relied
upon
by
learned
counsel for the parties. While relying
upon the judgements I have to see as to
whether execution proceeding is in
continuation of suit proceeding or a
different fresh proceeding. In most of
the judgement, Courts have taken the
view that execution proceeding is a
separate proceeding, but here the issue is
different. Section 36 read with Section
46 of Act, 2021 clearly provides that
Rent Authority is having power to
execute those orders, which were passed
by Rent Tribunal or under the provisions
of Act, 2021 meaning thereby any other
order passed in Act, 1972 cannot be
executed under the provisions of Act,
2021.

17. Section 46 of Act, 2021 also
clearly provides that old proceeding
under Act, 1972 shall continue under the
provisions of Act, 1972 upto the logical
ending.

18. Therefore, judgements so relied
upon are not relevant in the present
controversy.

19. After considering the provisions
of Act, 1972 as well as Act, 2021, this
Court is of the firm view that any order
passed under the provisions of Act, 1972
shall only be
executed under
the
provisions of Act, 1972.

20. Therefore, under such facts and
circumstances of the case, impugned
order dated 21.12.2022 passed by Civil
Judge, Mauranipur, Jhansi is hereby set
aside.

21. With the aforesaid observations,
writ petition is allowed. No order as to
costs.

22. Matter is remanded back to Trial
Court to decide the execution case on
merits expeditiously in accordance with
law, maximum within a period of three
months from the date of production of
certified
copy
of
this
order
after
providing opportunity of hearing to both
sides.
----------
860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 12 ILRA 860
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 8254 of 2022
With
Criminal Appeal No. 10177 of 2022
and other connected cases

Piyush Shyamdasani ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sr. Advocate, Aditya Prakash Singh, Neeraj
Joshi, Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel,
Sharique Ahmed, Sushil Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sr. Advocate, Deepankar Shukla, G.A.,
Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Raghuvansh Misra,
Sangam
Lal
Kesharwani,
Saurabh
Chaturvedi, Tanzeel Ahmad

Criminal
Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 372 - The Indian
Penal Code-1860-Sections 364, 302, 201,
120B, 404, 34, 203 & 202 - The Arms Act,
1959-Sections 4/25 - The Evidence Act,
1872-Sections 65B & 106-Criminal Appeal
challenging the judgment of conviction and
sentence- The prosecution has proved by
primary evidence that on the date of incident
accused A-1 took his wife- victim to restaurant
for dinner---During the intervening period for 8
to 10 minutes, the accused A-1 went downstairs
and the victim was sitting alone at the table---
Trial court rightly recorded the finding that it is
unnatural for a husband not to protest when
some unknown assailants were trying to abduct
his wife, by forcing him out of the car and
instead of speeding away the car or showing
any protest, he has virtually surrendered before
the said persons--- Accused A-1 did not suffer
any injury and is gave incorrect St.ment in the
FIR that he was given injuries by the assailants-
-- All the witnesses of fact have clearly St.d that
immediately after the marriage, Jyoti was
complaining about the unresponsive and cruel
behaviour of her husband and their testimony
could not be shattered despite lengthy crossexamination--- The circumstance proved by the
prosecution that immediately after the incident,
the victim was found in an injured condition in
car of A-1 and then she was shifted to hospital
where she was declared dead, also proved that
accused Piyush Shyamdasani has not given the
correct version to the police and has failed to
discharge burden under Section 106 of Evidence
Act.

The manner in which the injuries are caused to
the victim, also suggest that it is not a case of
abduction and motive was to commit murder---
No motive regarding any enmity has not come
on record--- The number and nature of injuries
caused on the body of the victim clearly shows
that the assailants were made sure that the
victim did not survive the injuries and therefore
prosecution has proved that the death of
deceased was of homicidal in nature--- The
prosecution has been able to prove the
complete chain of evidence against A-1,A-3, A4, A-5 & A-6- the involvement of A-2 in criminal
conspiracy with A-1, A-3 to A-6 is not proved---
Result Criminal Appeal of A-1,A-3, A-4, A-5 & A6 and Criminal Appeal of A-2 is allowed and she
is acquitted of the charge. (Para 156, 158, 159
& 160)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mahaveer Singh Vs St. of Har., (2001) 7 SCC
148

2. Ravindra Singh Vs St. of Pun., (2022) 7 SCC

3. Saju Vs St. of Kerala, (2001) 1 SCC 378

4. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao
Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1

5. Randeep Singh Rana @ Rana & Anr Vs St. of
Har. & ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 2024

6. Sharad BirdhiChand Sarda Vs St. of Mah.,
(1984) 4 SCC 116