# Siya Ram Verma v. Pooranmal Verma & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 903
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-14
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 26789 of 2012
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/siya-ram-verma-v-pooranmal-verma-ors-47921
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sri
Rajiv
Lochan
Shukla,
Sri
Manas
Bhargava

Civil
Law
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972- Section 21(1)
(b) Tthe petitioner has questioned the
correctness
of
the
judgment
of
the
Prescribed Authority in holding the building
to be in a dilapidated condition-the two
technical reports were placed before the
Prescribed Authority -one favors landlord
and other one favors tennant-both rejected
by
prescribed
authority
and
directed
advocate commissioner's report-inspection
by the advocate commissioner without
taking help of any technical expert - the
petitioner objected against the report of
advocate
commissioner
and
prescribed
authority did not considered his objectionwhile granting an application under Section
21(1)(b) of Act No. 13 of 1972 would be to
come to a definite finding as to whether
the building has really arrived in such a
dilapidated condition-Matter is remitted to
the Prescribed Authority.
W.P. allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1.Amar Nath Tandon Vs G.K. Bhargava, 1987AWC-2-877

2.Shamim Ahmad Vs D. J., Etah & ors., 2000 (2)
A.R.C.

## Text

11 All. Siya Ram Verma Vs. Pooranmal Verma & Ors.
903
this Court and followed by the Single
Bench in the case of Anshu Rani versus
State of U.P. passed in Writ-A No. 3486 of
2019, it is clear that the provisions of the
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 would prevail
over any law.

26. In the case at hand the maternity
leave so applied by the petitioner has been
rejected simply by stating "Anumanya
Nahi". Learned cousnel for the respondents
has submitted that the petitioner is not
entitled to the maternity leave in terms of
the restriction imposed by the second
proviso of Rule 153(1) of the Financial
Handbook to the effect that second
maternity leave cannot be granted where
there is difference of less than two years
between the end of the first maternity leave
and grant of second maternity leave.
Admittedly, the first maternity leave of the
petitioner was availed and she gave birth to
a male child on 4.1.2021. The petitioner
became pregnant again and applied again
for maternity leave on 11.6.2022. The
second maternity leave to the petitioner has
been refused by the impugned order.
However, once the 1961 Act does not
contain any such stipulation, the Basic
Education Officer manifestly erred in
rejecting the leave to the petitioner more
particularly when Section 27 of the 1961
Act provides that it is the 1961 Act which
would
be
applicable
notwithstanding
anything in consistent contained in any
other law or contract of service.

27. In the light of the above
discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The
order impugned dated 23.6.2022 in the writ
petition is set aside. The District Basic
Education Officer concerned is directed to
pass appropriate orders for sanctioning the
maternity leave to the petitioner within a
period of two weeks from the date of
service of certified copy of the order upon
him.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 903
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 26789 of 2012

Siya Ram Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
Pooranmal Verma & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Narendra Singh, Sri T.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri
Rajiv
Lochan
Shukla,
Sri
Manas
Bhargava

Civil
Law
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972- Section 21(1)
(b) Tthe petitioner has questioned the
correctness
of
the
judgment
of
the
Prescribed Authority in holding the building
to be in a dilapidated condition-the two
technical reports were placed before the
Prescribed Authority -one favors landlord
and other one favors tennant-both rejected
by
prescribed
authority
and
directed
advocate commissioner's report-inspection
by the advocate commissioner without
taking help of any technical expert - the
petitioner objected against the report of
advocate
commissioner
and
prescribed
authority did not considered his objectionwhile granting an application under Section
21(1)(b) of Act No. 13 of 1972 would be to
come to a definite finding as to whether
the building has really arrived in such a
dilapidated condition-Matter is remitted to
the Prescribed Authority.
W.P. allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1.Amar Nath Tandon Vs G.K. Bhargava, 1987AWC-2-877

2.Shamim Ahmad Vs D. J., Etah & ors., 2000 (2)
A.R.C.

3. Ram Prasad Vs Smt. Shashi Chaurasiya, 2018
(3) A.R.C. 743

4. Harbans Lal Vs Jag Mohan Saran,1985 AWC
903.

5. Amar Nath Tandon Vs G.K. Bhargava, 1987
AWC-2-877
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Narendra Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Manas Bhargava, learned Advocate holding
brief of Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned
counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
petitioner has questioned the correctness of
the judgment of the Prescribed Authority in
holding the building to be in a dilapidated
condition so as to release the same in
favour of landlord under Section 21(1) (b)
of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act
No. 13 of 1972').

3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner
before this Court that the two technical
reports were placed before the Prescribed
Authority, one in favour of landlord and the
other one in favour of tenant. The Prescribed
Authority rejected both the reports and
directed Advocate Commissioner's report.
The Advocate Commissioner did submit a
report before the Prescribed Authority after
conducting inspection without the help of any
technical expert and just only on the basis of
visual inspection made by him while he
inspected the building. This report was
neither supported by any map made for the
said purpose, nor the report was accompanied
by any photograph of the building, and hence
petitioner filed a detailed objection to the
Advocate Commissioner's report questioning
the authenticity of report itself. This objection
remained pending consideration before the
Prescribed Authority while the matter was
finally
heard,
whereas,
the
objection
submitted over report remained pending for
orders.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the objection of the
petitioner against the report of Advocate
Commissioner was earlier directed to be
considered at the stage of final hearing of the
case. However, it is argued that when the
matter was finally heard and decided, the
Prescribed Authority did not even consider
the objection filed by the petitioner to the
Advocate Commissioner's report and he
straight away relied upon the said report to
conclude and hold that the building was in a
dilapidated condition. A legal argument
therefore, advanced is that in the absence of
consideration of the objection filed to the
report, recording a finding that building in
question was in a dilapidated condition on the
basis of such a disputed report is a case of
gross impropriety on the part of authority
concerned while exercising quasi judicial
power and therefore, the order passed by the
Prescribed Authority deserved to be held
unsustainable. In support of his argument,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon a judgment of this Court in the case of
Amar Nath Tandon v. G.K.Bhargava, 1987AWC-2-877.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent landlord submits that once the
11 All. Siya Ram Verma Vs. Pooranmal Verma & Ors.
905
two technical reports available with the
court were rejected being in contradiction
of each other, the Court was left with no
other option but to appoint the Advocate
Commissioner to obtain a report of the fact
condition of the building in question on the
spot. He submits that a report of Advocate
Commissioner is not required to be proved
as such and a consideration of the objection
to the report would be sufficient enough.
He submits that the court can proceed to
believe the report on facts and decide as to
whether the building is in dilapidated
condition or not. In support of his
argument, he has placed reliance upon a
judgment of this Court in Shamim Ahmad
v. District Judge, Etah and others, 2000
(2) A.R.C. 543 and another judgment of
this Court in Ram Prasad v. Smt. Shashi
Chaurasiya, 2018 (3) A.R.C. 743.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and their arguments
raised across the bar, I find the moot legal
question involved in the case to be, as to
whether the Advocate Commissioner's
report was worth reliance, more especially
in the face of the fact that a detailed
objection to the same had been filed and so
how far court was justified in not
discussing the objection in its order while
arriving at a finding of fact absolutely
based upon an Advocate Commissioner's
report.

7. The relevant fact that needed
consideration in the present case while
granting an application under Section
21(1)(b) of Act No. 13 of 1972 would be
to come to a definite finding as to
whether the building has really arrived in
such a dilapidated condition that it is not
worth human living and if immediate
repair or in case if demolition of the
structure is not carried out it may cause
fatal injuries to the inhabitants of the
building.

8. Ordinarily, neither the court, nor
the lawyers as such could have that
technical skill and expertise to reach by
themselves to a definite view regarding
condition of a building without visiting
the spot with a team of technical experts
and therefore, in such situation report of
technical expert of the field concerned,
should have been obtained, no matter that
the
reports
earlier
placed
were
contradictory to each other. It is well
within the jurisdiction of the Court to call
for a fresh report from the technical
expert by requiring parties to accord their
consent for the same.

9. In the instant case, what I find is
that instead of resorting to the above action,
the court proceeded to appoint Advocate
Commissioner to submit a report. A
simpliciter
appointment
of
Advocate
Commissioner to call for a report qua the
condition of a building in the present case
resulted in submission of report of
Advocate Commissioner based on mere
observation by his eyes. Interestingly this
report
was
not
even
supported
by
photographs taken on the spot so as to form
a definite view that what was there
observed in the report was the correct
observation. Hence, a detailed objection
was correcting filed by the other side
questioning the report. Whether a report
would be admissible in evidence or
otherwise a mere reliance can be placed
could be a relevant factor but once the
objection has been taken to the report, the
court was hide bound in law to dispose of
those very objections before proceeding to
rely upon the report. It would definitely be
a case of gross impropriety and needed
immediate arrest in my exercise of power
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. If the court instead of discussing the
objection,
straightaway
proceeded
to
believe
the
Advocate
Commissioner's
report to record a finding of fact that
building was in a dilapidated condition, it
does not appeal to common sense which is
a must for dispensation of justice.

10. In my above view I find support
from the judgment of this Court cited by
learned Senior Advocate in the case of
Amar Nath Tandon (supra), wherein, vide
para 10 the court has held thus:

"10. Sri Rajendra Nath Saxena,
Advocate, was appointed as Commissioner
who
after
executing
the
commission
submitted
his
report
dated
18.3.81
(Annexure-13)
with
which
the
maps
prepared by him were also annexed. the
petitioner was not satisfied with the report
and,
therefore,
he
raised
objections
(contained in Annexure-14) in which the
extent of the accommodation shown by the
commissioner was disputed and it was
pleaded that the commissioner's report was
liable to be rejected. The Prescribed
Authority
without
disposing
of
the
objections on merits passed the order as
under:- "Let the Commissioner's report Ga24 be confirmed subject to objection Ga26". A perusal of the judgment passed by
the Prescribed Authority as also by the
appellate court indicates that the report of
the commissioner has been relied upon in
recording concurrent findings as to the
extent of accommodation in occupation of
the landlords, as also in occupation of the
petitioner
without
adverting
to
the
objections filed by the petitioner. The
objections remained undisposed of and the
commissioner's report was clindly relied
upon not only by the Prescribed Authority
but also by the appellate court. The
Prescribed Authority by order dated 27th
April, 1981 himself had confirmed the
report "subject to objections." It was,
therefore, his duty to have considered the
objections at the time of the hearing of the
case and to dispose of those objections on
merits before proceeding to rely upon the
report. This having not been done, the
report of the Commissioner was not
available for consideration. The Supreme
Court in a recent decision in Harbans Lal
v. Jag Mohan Saran, 1985 AWC 903 has
held that unless the objections against the
commissioner's report are disposed of, the
report does not become final and cannot be
taken into consideration. In view of this
decision the report of the Commissioner
contained in Annexure-14 was not, as
observed
earlier,
available
for
consideration either by the Prescribed
Authority or by the appellate court."

 (Emphasis added)

11. In so far as the judgment cited by
learned
counsel
for
the
contesting
respondent is concerned, I find that in the
case of Shamim Ahmad (supra), the Court
was more concerned with the issue where
the application for Commission was
rejected and which had not been appealed
against. This is not an issue before this
Court, nor this point has ever cropped up
before the court below while deciding the
matter. The question of issuance of
Commission is not a point in issue here and
therefore, the judgment is distinguishable
on facts and in my considered view it is not
of any help to the respondents.

12. In so far as the judgment in the
case of Ram Prasad (supra) is concerned
in that case there was a Engineer's report
available before the court and there was an
affidavit also filed in support thereof that
the building may have collapsed at any
11 All. Pavan Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
907
point of time. The report as was discussed
and believed in the said case, was rightly so
done but here I do not find any such report
available
from
any
technical
expert.
Judgment
is
therefore,
again
distinguishable on facts being in particular
set of facts of that case and so is of no help
to contesting respondents.

13. Sri Manas Bhargava very fairly
concedes at this stage that the objection
filed by the petitioner had remained
undisposed of even at the stage of final
hearing of the mater while the court
proceeded
to
believe
that
Advocate
Commissioner's report that was seriously
objected.

14. In such above view of the mater,
therefore, I am not able to sustain the
findings returned by the trial court as well
as the findings returned by the court of
appeal confirming the findings of the
Prescribed Authority on the issue whether
the building was in a dilapidated condition
and
deserved
release
under
Section
21(1)(b) of Act No. 13 of 1972. Both the
orders are hereby set aside.

15. Matter is remitted to the
Prescribed Authority to be decided afresh
after considering the objections of the
petitioner to the Advocate Commissioner's
report and disposing of the same first. It is
further provided that it would be more
desirable if the court proceeds to call for an
expert report in respect of the condition of
the building in question so that proper
adjudication of the point is done for
considering the application for release
under Section 21(1)(b) of Act No. 13 of
1972.

16. Both the parties shall appear on or
before 25.11.2022 before the Prescribed
Authority. The Prescribed Authority shall
thereafter proceed to decide the matter
finally in the light of observations made
herein above and also by giving full
opportunity of hearing to the contesting
parties, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of three months
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order. It is further provided that
in the meanwhile, the petitioner would
continue to pay rent as he has been paying
till now.

17. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, this petition stands allowed
with no order as to cost.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 907
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7858 of 2022

Pavan Kumar Agrawal ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Samir Srivastava, Sri Ankit Agarval, Sri
Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel, Sri Som
Veer

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Krishna Agarawal

Criminal
Law
-
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances
Act,
1985
-
Section 52 A-Applicant's elder brother holds a
license to 'Sell, stock, exhibit or offer for sale, or
distribute by wholesale, drugs other than those
specified in Schedule C, C(1) and X' and runs
medical store-by another license -authorized to
deal in drugs specified in Schedule C and C(1)