# Smt. Ribha Devi and others v. Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Varanasi and another

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 15
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-12-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.49640 of 2003
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ribha-devi-and-others-v-rent-control-eviction-officer-varanasi-and-another-40254
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972,
Section 16 (b)-title dispute-can not be
determined in mutation proceedings by,
municipal corporation-nor in proceedings
u/s 16 of Act No. 13 of 1972-even the
orders passed by RC & EO is subject to
decision of regular suit.

Held- Para 3

In my opinion the validity of the gift/gift
deed alleged to have been made by Raj
Nath in favour of Pyare Lal and Ram
Dulare can be determined neither in
mutation proceedings before municipal
corporation nor in proceedings under
Section 16 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. If
the gift is valid then sale deeds obtained
by
respondent
no.2
are
also
valid
otherwise not. The dispute in between
petitioners and respondent no.2 is a pure
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
16
and simple dispute of title for which
proper remedy is regular civil suit before
the civil court. Even orders passed by
Rent Control and Eviction Officer under
Section 16 of the Act is subject to
decision of regular civil suit on question
of title. In this regard reference may be
made to A.I.R. 1991 S.C. Page 884.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1991 SC page 884

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Smt. Ribha Devi and others V. R.C.E.O., Varanasi and another
15
discrimination inter se between ad hoc
appointees in the Judgeship at Chandauli.

12. Rule (4) cannot be interpreted in
a manner as suggested by the counsel for
petitioners. It does not create two classes
of persons. It creates only one class of
person
who
possess
requisite
qualifications for regular appointments at
the time of ad hoc appointments; was
directly appointed on ad hoc basis on or
before 30.6.1998, and is continuing in
service as such on 20th December, 2001,
and has completed three years of service.
His appointment has to be given with
effect from the date when a permanent or
temporary post becomes available. Thus
only one class of person has been
visualized
for
consideration
for
regularisation and i.e. a person who
fulfills all three conditions given in Rule
4.

13. All petitioners were appointed
without following any procedure of
appointment,
and
without
inviting
applications from the open market and all
of them were aware of the fact that their
ad hoc appointment is only for a period of
three months and in any case until the
regular selections. Each of them got
opportunity to apply in regular selections.
Petitioners' appointment were, therefore,
made in a particular exigencies of service
for specific periods and that with express
condition that it will be terminated on
regular
appointment.
They
cannot,
therefore, invoke equity in law only on
the ground that they have completed three
years of service.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, I do
not find any merit in both the writ
petitions. The cut of date provided in the
Rules is held to be valid. All the
petitioners were appointed subsequent to
this date and thus they are not entitled to
be considered for regularisation. Both the
writ petitions are consequently dismissed
with no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 1.12.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.49640 of 2003

Smt. Ribha Devi and others ...Petitioner
Versus
Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Varanasi
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.S. Haq
Sri T. Haq
S.C.

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972,
Section 16 (b)-title dispute-can not be
determined in mutation proceedings by,
municipal corporation-nor in proceedings
u/s 16 of Act No. 13 of 1972-even the
orders passed by RC & EO is subject to
decision of regular suit.

Held- Para 3

In my opinion the validity of the gift/gift
deed alleged to have been made by Raj
Nath in favour of Pyare Lal and Ram
Dulare can be determined neither in
mutation proceedings before municipal
corporation nor in proceedings under
Section 16 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. If
the gift is valid then sale deeds obtained
by
respondent
no.2
are
also
valid
otherwise not. The dispute in between
petitioners and respondent no.2 is a pure
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
16
and simple dispute of title for which
proper remedy is regular civil suit before
the civil court. Even orders passed by
Rent Control and Eviction Officer under
Section 16 of the Act is subject to
decision of regular civil suit on question
of title. In this regard reference may be
made to A.I.R. 1991 S.C. Page 884.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1991 SC page 884

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. Dispute of title in between
petitioners and respondent no2. is sought
to be resolved in release proceedings
under Section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972. Admittedly, late Raj nath was
owner of the house of which the property
in dispute is a portion. The four
petitioners are his daughters. Respondent
no.2 has purchased the entire house from
Pyare Lal and Ram Dulare who are
nephews of late Raj nath. Pyare Lal and
Ram Dulare claimed that Raj Nath had
gifted the house in dispute to them in the
year 1952. Dispute regarding the said gift
deed had arisen in between Raj Nath and
his nephews during the life time of Raj
Nath. The parties litigated before
municipal
corporation
authorities
in
mutation proceedings. However, said
proceedings and orders passed therein are
not at all relevant for deciding the
question of title. Pyare Lal sold northern
portion of the house to respondent no.2
through sale deed dated 24.2.1987 and his
brother Ram Dulare sold southern portion
to respondent no.2 through sale deed
dated 20.9.1996. Regarding northern
portion, respondent no.2 filed release
application under Section 16 (b) of the
Act against some of the petitioners. A lot
of litigation took place in between the
petitioners and respondent no.2 regarding
release application of northern portion.
The matter came to this Court several
time in the form of writ petitions
numbered as W.P. No.26025 of 1997,
7956 of 2000, 54678 of 1999 and 7932 of
2001.Against the decision of the last writ
petition a SLP was also filed before the
Supreme Court which was dismissed.
Details of these proceedings regarding
northern portion have been given in
paragraphs 13 to 20 of the writ petition.
In the aforesaid proceedings the northern
portion was released in favour of
respondent no.2.

2. Thereafter respondent no.2 filed
similar
release
application
regarding
southern portion which she had purchased
from Ram Dulare through sale deed dated
20.9.1996. In these proceedings which
was registered as case no.116 of 2001 on
the file of R.C.&E.O./A.D.M. (Civil
Supplies), Varanasi vacancy has been
declared through order dated 16.10.2003,
annexed as Annexure-17 and impugned in
the instant writ petition.

3. In my opinion the validity of the
gift/gift deed alleged to have been made
by Raj Nath in favour of Pyare Lal and
Ram Dulare can be determined neither in
mutation proceedings before municipal
corporation nor in proceedings under
Section 16 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. If
the gift is valid then sale deeds obtained
by respondent no.2 are also valid
otherwise not. The dispute in between
petitioners and respondent no.2 is a pure
and simple dispute of title for which
proper remedy is regular civil suit before
the civil court. Even orders passed by
Rent Control and Eviction Officer under
Section 16 of the Act is subject to
decision of regular civil suit on question
of title. In this regard reference may be
made to A.I.R. 1991 S.C. Page 884.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] M/s Soni Photostat Centre V. Basudev Gupta and another
17
4. Accordingly, writ petition is
dismissed. However, petitioners may file
regular civil suit before civil court seeking
declaration
of
their
title
alongwith
ancillary reliefs including application for
temporary injunction. If such a suit is
filed the same must be decided on merit
and on the basis of evidence adduced
therein without taking into consideration
findings recorded in the impugned order.

In-fact for such a suit no permission
by the Court is necessary.

5. For a period of four months
further proceedings in pursuance of
impugned
order
dated
16.10.2003
declaring
vacancy
passed
by
R.C.&E.O./A.D.M.
(Civil
Supplies),
Varanasi in case no.116 of 2001 shall
remain stayed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.10.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Masc. Writ Petition No.40389 of 1999

M/s Soni Photostat Centre ...Petitioner
Versus
Basudev Gupta and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.B. Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri U.N. Sharma
Sri R.S. Prasad
Sri Aditya Kumar Yadav
S.C.

Constitution of India Article 226-New
plea- not raised before Tribunal-whether
can be raised for first time-in writ
petition?-plea that petitioner is not an
industry-is a pure question of law-hence,
can be raised.

Held: Para 20

The question whether the establishment
of the petitioner comes within the
definition of industry or not, is a pure
question of law and can be raised in the
writ petition as it goes to the very root of
jurisdiction of the labour court.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1978 SC 548
2002 (94) FLR 622
1996 FLR
1979 (39) FLR 70
2002 Vol. 1 UPLBEC 319

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

Heard the counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

2. The petitioner has filed the
present writ petition challenging the
impugned award dated 26.3.1999 passed
by labour court in Adjudication Case
No.8 of 1998, Annexure-9 to the writ
petition treating respondent no.1 with
continuity in service and back wages from
the date of his termination dated 1.6.1995.

3. The brief facts of the case as they
appear from record are that the petitioner
has a Photostat machine installed in a
room of 12 x 8 feet. The shop was
registered with the Director of Industries
having its Registration No.SSI-53612.
There are two electrostat machines in the
shop. One of the machines is used for job
work and another is used for display to
secure orders for sale of the electrostat
machine on commission. It is alleged that
the workman required an experience
certificate for applying for job else where
and the same was given to him on
8.12.1990 by the proprietor of the shop.