# Smt. Raj Kumar Devi and others v. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 241
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-02-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5979 of 2002
- **Bench:** A.K. Yog
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-raj-kumar-devi-and-others-v-motor-accident-claims-tribunal-and-others-39810
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 -
Section 21 (i) (a) Release Applicationtenant
possessing
residential
accomodation in same city-tenant can
not object the release application.

Held- Para 15

Besides the above, in the explanation of
Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, is attracted
and tenant cannot object to the release
application filed by the land lord as he
has acquired a residential building -
wherein his son is admittedly living.

## Text

1All] Smt. Raj Kumar Devi and others V. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and others
241
S.C., 641 - Harbhajan Singh Versus
Karan Singh and the decision of Full
Bench of this Court reported in 1997
R.D., 562 - Smt. Shivragi Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, has
held that the review application cannot be
entertained either under the old Act or
under the new Act. The Division Bench
further relying upon the two decisions,
referred to above, has observed that since
there is no specific provision to review
the revision, which is to be created under
only statute, the Tribunal has no power to
review the same. In this view of the
matter, the order impugned in the present
writ petition deserves to be quashed.

3. Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned
counsel for the respondent no.3 argued
firstly; the maintainability of the writ
petition instead of filing of an appeal,
which has been answered by a Division
Bench (supra). Sri Pathak has further
relied upon a decision of learned single
Judge of this Court reported in 1995 (2)
Transport and accidents Cases, 464 but
in view of the Division bench decision, I
am bound by the decision of the Division
Bench. In this view of the matter, the
order of the Tribunal, impugned in the
present writ petition dated 28.11.1996 is
not supported by any law and it therefore
deserves to be quashed.

4. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition deserves to be
allowed and is hereby allowed. The order
dated 28.11.1996, Annexure-1 to the writ
petition, passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Jaunpur, is set aside.
The petitioners will be entitled for their
costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 8.2.2002

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5979 of 2002

Sardar Harbir Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Additional District Judge, Court No. 14,
Meerut and others
 ...Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ravi Kant
Sri Amit Krishan

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
Sri Pankaj Mithal

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 -
Section 21 (i) (a) Release Applicationtenant
possessing
residential
accomodation in same city-tenant can
not object the release application.

Held- Para 15

Besides the above, in the explanation of
Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, is attracted
and tenant cannot object to the release
application filed by the land lord as he
has acquired a residential building -
wherein his son is admittedly living.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.)

1. The dispute relates to residential
accommodation - House No. 254-255.
Ghoshi Mohalla, Lal Kurti, Meerut Cant.
Meerut. The accommodation, on the
ground floor, consists of two rooms. The
said house consists of ground floor and
first floor. On the ground floor, Landlady
has in her possession the following
accommodation: Two rooms - 17` x 8`
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
242
approx. 14x9 1⁄2 approx., one kitchen 3 1⁄2
' x 3 1⁄2 ' approx. On first floor one room
with asbestos cement roof cover 9' x 10'
approx. with open roof - 9' x 17' approx.
The petitioner tenant has in his possession
following accommodation - One room -
14' x 8 1⁄2 ' approx. Kitchen - 3.9' x 4 1⁄2 '
approx. The following amenities are
common - Gallery, Latrine and Bath.

2. The family of the landlady
undisputedly consist of the following: -

1.
Smt. Vimla Agarwal
- Landlady
2.
Avinash Agarwal
- Husband of
Landlady
3.
Atul
- Son of Landlady
4.
Wife of Atul- Daughter in law of
Landlady
5.
One Child
6.
Km. Abha
7.
Km. Asha both unmarried daughters
of Landlady
8.
Smt. Alka
- Married daughter of
the landlady

3. According to the Landlady, the
tenant (petitioner) had acquired another
residential House No. 1/264 L.I.G.
Shradhapuri, Kanker Khera, Meerut on
the basis of agreement of sale executed by
its owner Prem Kumar Yadav. It has also
come on record that said house had a shop
at Kanker Khera, Meerut which is in the
possession of the tenant-petitioner. It has
come on the record that the said
agreement of sale has been executed by
said Prem Kumar Yadav in favour of wife
of the petitioner tenant who also obtained
possession in pursuance to the said
agreement of sale. It has also come on
record that the son of the tenant-petitioner
Gurmeet Singh with his family is living in
the said house and has also a shop therein
for selling of articles of day to day use.
4. The perusal of the judgment and
order
dated
9.12.1997
passed
by
Prescribed Authority (Annexure-2 to the
petition) also shows that Deepak Singh
another son of the tenant petitioner is an
attesting witness to the said agreement of
sale and that he is resident of another
House namely, 117, Arya Nagar. Kankar
Khera Meerut.

5. The landlady Smt. Vimla
Agarwal, respondent no. 3, filed an
application under Section 21(1) (a), U.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U.P. Act
No. XIII of 1972 (for short called the
Act), for seeking release of aforesaid
house 254-255 situate at Lal Kurti,
Meerut for obtaining accommodation in
the tenancy of the petitioner on the
ground that she required the same for self
and her family and her need was bonafide
and genuine and she was to suffer more
hardship as compared to the petitioner in
case of rejection of release application.
Parties led evidence and Prescribed
Authority on the basis of record allowed
the said release application vide judgment
and order dated 9.12.1997 (Annexure-2 to
the writ petition) on the ground that tenant
petitioner had acquired another vacant
state residential building in the same city
on the basis of the agreement and it is
admitted fact that son of tenant-petitioner
had been living in the said residential
building (1/264 Shraddhapuri, Kanker
Khera, Meerut). The objection against
release at the instance of tenant petitioner
is not maintainable in view of Section 21
(1) explanation (1) which reads:

"Where the tenant or any member
of his family (who has been normally
residing with or is wholly dependent on
him) has built or has otherwise acquired
1All] Sardar Harbir Singh V. A.D.J., Court No.14, Meerut and others
243
in a vacant state or has got vacated after
acquisition a residential building in the
same city, municipality, notified area or
town area, no objection by the tenant
against an application under this subsection shall be entertained......"

6. The Prescribed Authority came to
the conclusion that need of the landlady
was genuine and bona fide and that she
was to suffer more hardship as compared
to the tenant-petitioner if release was
refused.
The
Prescribed
Authority,
consequently,
allowed
the
release
application in favour of the landlady.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitionertenant filed Rent Appeal No. 18 of 1998 -
Sardar Harbir Singh Versus. Smt. Vimla
Agarwal. During the pendency of the
appeal, two reports of court Amin's were
brought on record. Copies of Amin's
report dated 25.11.1998 and 24.7.1999
have been filed as Annexure 3 and 4 to
the writ petition.

8. From the perusal of the Amin's
report dated 25.11.1998 (Annexure-3 to
the writ petition) two things clearly
transpire:

(i) That the number of rooms available
with the Landlady are only three, both
on ground floor and first floor.
(ii) The tenant had acquired residential
building in the same city where his
son was found living with his family.

9. Amin's report (Paper No. 27 Ga)
noted that the room on the first floormeasured 9' x 10' approx. and used as
Store room. It was in deplorable condition
(i.e. not worth habitation). The Appellate
Authority on the basis of evidence on
record affirmed finding of the Prescribed
Authority on this issue of the need of
genuine and bona fide of the landlady as
well as the finding on the issue
comparative hardship in favour of the
landlady.

10. Not being satisfied, tenant has
preferred the present writ petition seeking
to challenge judgment and order dated
9.12.1997 (Annexure-2 to the petition)
passed by Prescribed Authority under
Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act and the
judgment and order dated 22.1.2002
passed by Appellate Authority/Additional
District Judge, Court No. 14, Meerut,
respondent No.1 dismissing the Rent
Appeal No. 18/98 under Section 22 of the
Act (Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition).

11. The only argument made on
behalf of the petitioner is that the
Commissioner's report could not be relied
upon without referring to the objections
filed by the petitioner against them. The
copies of the said objection have been
filed in the shape of affidavits of the
petitioner dated 27.8.1999 and 13.9.1999
(Annexures 5 and 7 to the writ petition).

12. The argument of the learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
though
attractive superficially only one will on
deeper scrutiny, find no force in it. The
Commissioner's report was relevant only
for finding proving the factual condition
of the one room on the first floor.

13. This Court has independently
considered the respective cases of the
parties and found that there is no dispute
regarding the accommodation vis-à-vis
family members of the landlord & the
tenant.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
244
14. It is clear that there are at least
three units in the family of the landlady.
At least, one room for landlady and her
husband, one room for her son Atul and
his wife with one children, and third room
for two grown up daughters is required to
be used as their Bed-Rooms. The room,
said to be available at the first floor (with
Asbestos Cement roof-measuring 9' x 10'
approx.) cannot be said to be worthhabitation. A family, like that of the
landlady, will certainly require one more
room for being used as store and
miscellaneous purpose. Landlady cannot
be directed to live in one room alone
without any other room like Drawing
Dining; etc.

15. Besides the above, in the
explanation of Section 21(1) (a) of the
Act, is attracted and tenant cannot object
to the release application filed by the
landlord as he has 'acquired' a residential
building - wherein his son is admittedly
living.

16. The contention of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that said
Explanation in the Act applies only when
the tenant acquires a residential building
by maturing title is misconceived and
against the express intent borne out from
the said provision. This explanation uses
the
expression
'ACQUIRES'
which
means 'defacto' possession-irrespective
of title or status-and may be as an allottee
or licensee.

17. In view of the above, I find no
manifest error apparent on the face of
record in the impugned orders nor find it a
fit case for interference by this Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226, Constitution of India.

18. At the end learned counsel for
the petitioner has, however, filed an
affidavit giving unequivocal condition
with a free will that he shall vacate the
accommodation in question provided six
months time is granted to him from the
date of this judgment to deliver peaceful
and vacant possession to the landlady.

19. In view of the above undertaking
given by the petitioner through his son
Deepak Singh, who is deponent of the
said affidavit on record, I direct that the
petitioner
shall
handover
peaceful
possession of the accommodation in
question on or before 31.8.2002 subject,
however, to the following conditions are
promptly complied by the parties to which
the learned counsel for the parties have
assured on instructions of their clients
being taken to comply with the same:-

1. The tenant petitioner shall file before
the concerned Prescribed Authority,
on or before 8.3.2002 an application
along with his affidavit giving an
unconditional undertaking to comply
with all the conditions mentioned
hereinafter.

2. Petitioner-tenant shall not be evicted
from the accommodation in his
tenancy upto 31.8.2002. Tenantpetitioner his representative assignee
etc.
claiming
through
him
or
otherwise, if any, shall vacate without
objection
and
peacefully
deliver
vacant
possession
of
the
accommodation in question on or
before 31.8.2002 to the landlord or
landlord's nominee/representative (if
any, appointed and intimated by the
landlord) by giving prior advance
notice and notifying to the landlord
by Registered A.D. post (on his last
1All] Saurabh Gupta V. The Chairman Councilling Board/C.P.M.T. and another
245
known address or as may be disclosed
in advance by the landlord in writing
before
the
concerned
Prescribed
Authority) time and date on which
Landlord is to take possession from
the tenant.

3. Petitioner shall on or before 8.3.2002
deposit entire amount due towards
rent etc. up to date i.e. entire arrears
of the past if any, as well as the rent
for
the
period
ending
on
the
31.8.2002.

4. Petitioner and everyone claiming
under him undertake not to 'change'
or
'damage'
or
transfer/alienate/assign
in
any
manner,
the
accommodation
in
question.

5. In case Tenant/Petitioner fails to
comply with any of the conditions/or
direction/s contained in this order,
landlord shall be entitled to evict the
Tenant-Petitioner forthwith from the
accommodation
in
question
by
seeking
police
force
through
concerned prescribed authority.

6. If there is violation of the undertaking
of anyone or more of the conditions
contained in this order the defaulting
party shall pay Rs. 25000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) as
damages to the other party, besides
rendering
himself
liable
to
be
prosecuted for committing grossest
contempt of the Court.

20. The writ petition is dismissed
subject to the above conditions and
observations.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32780 of 2001

Saurabh Gupta Minor son of Sri Ashok
Kumar Gupta

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman Councilling Board/C.P.M.T.
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Swapnil Kumar
Sri Saurabh Gupta
(In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashutosh Srivastava

Constitution of India - Article 226 -A
candidate
who
appeared
in
CPMT
Examination in disabled category was
required to come in merit list but his
candidature was subject to his fitness
declared by the Board - Once he was
found fit by the Board and the earlier
Board had not found him unfit, the
procedural requirements was complete.
(Held - Paras 11 & 13)

The respondents cannot be permitted to
take advantage of their own omission of
not issuing a certificate. Once the
petitioner was found suitable, it was
immaterial whether he was examined by
the Board before or after the counseling
In any case, it was during pendency of
the Writ petition in the court and it shall
be deemed that it was the first medical
test of the petitioner.

The respondents are directed to admit
the petitioner in M.B.B.S. course within
three weeks from the date a certified
copy of this order is produced before
respondent no. 1