# Yupender Kalra v. Pradeep Saigal

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 602
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-06-02
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 9650 of 2019
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yupender-kalra-v-pradeep-saigal-45864
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Sri Sumit Daga

A.
Respondent
landlord-filed
suit
for
eviction as material alteration has been
caused -to the property-and arrears of
rent-Argument of respondent landlord
was
concluded-date
was
fixed
for
Petitioner's
arguement-Petitioner
filed
Application 123 Ga- rent agreement-after
delay of 8 years-no reasonable and
satisfactory explanation for delay-and also
not
admissible
evidence-since
it
is
insufficiently
stamped
and
an
unregistered document-application 123
Ga
rejected-instead
challenging
itApplication 155 Ga filed-righty rejected
being barred by the principle of Res
Judicata.

Held, From the facts detailed above, it is
apparent that it is not the case of the petitioner
in the written statement that he has made
material alteration in the disputed shop in terms
of rent deed, therefore, the rent deed cannot be
read in evidence in the absence of any pleading
by the petitioner in the written statement. So,
the petitioner cannot take the help of rent deed
to negate the case of the respondent of
material alteration of the petitioner. Further,
the fact that the Petitioner acknowledges that
the rent deed is insufficiently stamped is
manifest from the act of the petitioner as he
did not challenge the order of the court below
dismissing the application 123GA rather he
filed an application 155Ga with a prayer to
impound the rent deed and direct the
authorities to accept deficient stamp duty,
compounding fee and penalty from him. The
aforesaid fact reflects that the purpose of
filing the application123Ga that too after eight
years is to delay the disposal of the suit.
Thus, this Court does not find any error or
illegality in the order dated 27.09.2017
rejecting the application 123Ga and the order
of revision court dated 20.03.2018 affirming
the order of the trial court dated 27.09.2017.
(Para 26)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)06ILR A602
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.06.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9650 of 2019
(Civil)

Yupender Kalra ...Petitioner
Versus
Pradeep Saigal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinayak Mithal

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Sumit Daga

A.
Respondent
landlord-filed
suit
for
eviction as material alteration has been
caused -to the property-and arrears of
rent-Argument of respondent landlord
was
concluded-date
was
fixed
for
Petitioner's
arguement-Petitioner
filed
Application 123 Ga- rent agreement-after
delay of 8 years-no reasonable and
satisfactory explanation for delay-and also
not
admissible
evidence-since
it
is
insufficiently
stamped
and
an
unregistered document-application 123
Ga
rejected-instead
challenging
itApplication 155 Ga filed-righty rejected
being barred by the principle of Res
Judicata.

Held, From the facts detailed above, it is
apparent that it is not the case of the petitioner
in the written statement that he has made
material alteration in the disputed shop in terms
of rent deed, therefore, the rent deed cannot be
read in evidence in the absence of any pleading
by the petitioner in the written statement. So,
the petitioner cannot take the help of rent deed
to negate the case of the respondent of
material alteration of the petitioner. Further,
the fact that the Petitioner acknowledges that
the rent deed is insufficiently stamped is
manifest from the act of the petitioner as he
did not challenge the order of the court below
dismissing the application 123GA rather he
filed an application 155Ga with a prayer to
impound the rent deed and direct the
authorities to accept deficient stamp duty,
compounding fee and penalty from him. The
aforesaid fact reflects that the purpose of
filing the application123Ga that too after eight
years is to delay the disposal of the suit.
Thus, this Court does not find any error or
illegality in the order dated 27.09.2017
rejecting the application 123Ga and the order
of revision court dated 20.03.2018 affirming
the order of the trial court dated 27.09.2017.
(Para 26)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of cases cited:-

1. SMS Tea Estates Private Limited Vs.
Chandmari Tea Company Private Limited 2011
(11) SCC 66

2. Darayo & Others Vs. State Of U.P. (1962) 1
SCR 574

3. Asha Agarwal (Smt.) and Others Vs. M/S
Arvind & Co. and Others 2015 All. C.J. 552

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sumit
Daga, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner-tenant (hereinafter
referred as 'Petitioner') by means of the
present petition under Article 227 of
Constitution of India has assailed four
orders; (i) order dated 27.09.2017 passed
by Additional Small Causes Court, Meerut
in SCC Suit No.41 of 2010 whereby it
rejected the application 123Ga of the
petitioner for taking the rent deed dated
26.12.1986 and F.I.R. dated 17.11.1996 on
record, (ii) order dated 20.03.2018 passed
by the District Judge, Meerut in SCC
Revision No.8 of 2018 dismissing the
6 All. Yupender Kalra Vs. Pradeep Saigal
603
revision of petitioner against the order
dated
27.09.2017,
(iii)
order
dated
12.02.2019 passed by Additional Small
Causes
Court,
Meerut
rejecting
the
application 155Ga of the petitioner praying
for impounding the rent deed dated
26.12.1986 and further direction to the
District Magistrate to accept the deficient
stamp
duty
alongwith
penalty
and
compounding charges from the petitioner
and send the rent deed back to the court,
(iv) order dated 07.11.2019 passed by
Additional District Judge, Court No.1,
Meerut dismissing the SCC Revision No.44
of 2019 preferred by the petitioner against
the order dated 12.02.2019.

3. The facts, in brief, are that
respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred as
'Respondent') instituted SCC Suit No.41 of
2010
contending
inter-alia
that
the
petitioner is the tenant of Shop No.4B
situated in building no.171/B-E Abu Lane,
Meerut Cantt. (hereinafter referred to as
'disputed shop') on the monthly rent of
Rs.5,000/- per month. The eviction of the
petitioner has been sought mainly on two
grounds; the petitioner was in arrears of
rent w.e.f. 01.09.2010 to 02.09.2010.
Secondly, the petitioner has willfully
caused substantial damage to the building
and made material alteration in the disputed
shop by raising construction. The plea as
regards the material alteration have been
stated in detail by the respondent in
paragraphs 7 to 10 of the plaint.

4. The petitioner contested the suit by
filing written statement on 01.01.2011
contending inter-alia that father of the
respondent instituted SCC Case No.8 of
1994 for eviction against the petitioner
contending that he had not paid the rent @
Rs.1050/- per month in terms of rent deed
dated 26.12.1986. The suit was dismissed
by Additional District Judge, Court No.8,
Meerut by judgement and order dated
30.03.2002 with the cost of Rs.3,000/-. The
petitioner denied the factum of alteration
and construction alleged to have been
raised by him. Besides above, several other
pleas have been taken the reference of
which are not relevant for the present case.

5. It transpires from the record that
the final argument of the respondent in
SCC Suit No.41 of 2010 was concluded
and the case was fixed for the argument of
the petitioner. On the date fixed for the
arguments of the petitioner, he filed an
application 123Ga dated 09.08.2017 with a
prayer for accepting on record the two
documents; (i) F.I.R. Dated 17.11.1996, (ii)
Rent deed dated 26.12.1986. It was averred
in the application that petitioner while
preparing the case could lay hands to the
aforesaid documents. On discovery of the
aforesaid
documents,
he
filed
an
application for taking those documents on
record without any delay, and if the
aforesaid documents are not admitted on
record, it would cause irreparable injury
and injustice to the petitioner.

6. The aforesaid application 123Ga
was contested by the respondent by filing
objection 128Ga denying the execution of
rent deed dated 26.12.1986. The respondent
further stated that petitioner did not file the
aforesaid
two
documents
alongwith
evidence filed by him in the year 2012 and
2013. It was further stated that the suit is
being fixed for hearing for the last 3 years,
and if the documents are accepted, the trial
would start de novo. There is an inordinate
delay of about 8 years in filing the
application 123Ga by the petitioner without
there
being
any proper
and
cogent
explanation for the delay in filing the said
application. The respondent further stated
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that application 123Ga has been filed only
to delay the disposal of the suit. It was also
stated that the petitioner has not elaborated
the details of alleged rent deed dated
26.12.1986 in paragraph 16 & 17 of the
written statement, and in fact, he has denied
the fact of making any material alteration in
the disputed shop in paragraphs 25 & 27 of
the written statement.

7. The trial court by order dated
27.09.2017 dismissed the application on the
ground that application 123Ga has been
filed only to delay the disposal of the suit.

8. The order dated 27.09.2017 was
assailed by the petitioner in SCC Revision
No.8 of 2018 which was also dismissed by
the court of District Judge, Meerut on the
ground that alleged rent deed is written on
stamp paper of Rs.7/- and is insufficiently
stamped, therefore, it is inadmissible in
evidence because of Section 35 of Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as
'Act, 1899') till the time proviso (a)
appended to Section 35 are complied with.
Consequently, it held that the rent deed
cannot be taken on record. The revision
court refused to take the other document
i.e. F.I.R. on record on the ground that said
documents has no bearing in the present
case.

9. The record reflects that after the
dismissal of the Revision no.8 of 2018, the
petitioner filed another application 155Ga
on 01.01.2019 after about 8 months. The
petitioner averred in the said application
that he had filed rent deed with application
123Ga with a prayer to take the same on
record which was rejected by the trial
court. It is further stated that the revision
court in affirming the order of the trial
court observed that the rent deed is
insufficiently stamped and is inadmissible
in evidence and can be impounded under
Section 33 of the Act, 1899. Accordingly,
the petitioner prayed in the said application
that the rent deed may be impounded and
send to the District Magistrate with
direction to accept the deficient stamp duty
alongwith
penalty
and
compounding
charges and send the rent deed back to the
court.

10. The aforesaid application 155Ga
was dismissed by the trial court by order
dated 12.02.2019 holding that application
123Ga of petitioner for taking the rent deed
dated 26.12.1986 on record was rejected by
this Court by order dated 27.09.2017
affirmed in revision, since the order passed
in Revision No.8 of 2018 has not been
assailed by the petitioner and same has
attained finality, therefore, application
155Ga is misconceived and same has been
filed only to delay the disposal of the suit.

11.

The
petitioner,
thereafter,
preferred SCC Revision No.44 of 2019
against the order dated 12.02.2019 which
was also dismissed by the revision court
affirming the finding of the trial court in
rejecting the application 155Ga.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended that the court below has
committed manifest illegality in rejecting
the application 123Ga for taking the rent
deed dated 26.12.1986 on record and also
the application 155Ga for impounding the
rent deed dated 26.12.1986. He submits
that delay cannot be a ground to reject the
application 123Ga since it is settled in law
that court should be liberal in accepting the
evidence to do the substantial justice. He
further submits that rent deed dated
26.12.1986
belies
the
case
of
the
respondent
regarding
the
material
alternation by the petitioner, therefore, in
6 All. Yupender Kalra Vs. Pradeep Saigal
605
the interest of justice, the court below
ought to have taken the said document on
record.

13. He further submits that once it has
come to the notice of the court that a
document is insufficiently stamped, a duty
is cast upon the court under Section 33 of
the Act, 1899 to impound the same and
send it to the competent authority to
proceed
following
the
procedure
contemplated under Section 35 of the Act,
1899. In support of his contention, he has
placed reliance upon the judgement of
Apex Court in the case of SMS Tea Estates
Private Limited Vs. Chandmari Tea
Company Private Limited 2011 (11) SCC
66.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent contends that no explanation of
inordinate delay of eight years in filing the
application 123Ga has been given by the
petitioner. He further submits that the
revision court in affirming the order of the
trial court rejecting the application 123Ga
considered the consequences of taking the
rent deed on record and after appreciating
the law on the subject found that rent deed
is
insufficiently
stamped
and
is
an
unregistered document, and as such, is
inadmissible in evidence, therefore, it
cannot be taken on record and admitted in
evidence.

15. He further submitted that it is not
the case of the petitioner that he had carried
out material alteration in the disputed shop
because of conditions stipulated in the rent
deed authorising the petitioner to carry out
alternation rather a perusal of the written
statement discloses that he has denied the
fact of material alteration in the disputed
shop. He further submits that petitioner
though has referred to the alleged rent deed
dated 26.12.1986 in paragraph 17 of the
written statement but has not elaborated the
details of the rent deed in the written
statement. Thus, the submission is that in
the absence of any pleading that the alleged
rent deed permitted the petitioner to carry
out modification or alteration in the
disputed shop in the written statement, the
alleged rent deed cannot be read in
evidence, therefore, the aforesaid facts
make it obvious that the application 123Ga
has mischievously been filed to delay the
disposal of the suit.

16. He further submits that the order of
the revision court dated 20.03.2018 affirming
the order dated 27.09.2017 has not been
assailed by the petitioner and same has
attained finality, therefore, application 155Ga
was not maintainable. He submits that the
question of impounding a document would
arise only after the same has been accepted
on record by the orders of the court whereas
in the present case, the application 123Ga of
the petitioner for taking the rent deed dated
26.12.1986 on record has already been
rejected by the trial court which order has
been affirmed by the revision court,
accordingly, he submits that the court below
has not committed any illegality in rejecting
the application 155Ga.

17. He further submits that the
application 155Ga is barred by the
principle of constructive resjudicata since
the plea sought to be raised in application
155Ga could have been raised by the
petitioner in application 123Ga, as such,
the application 155Ga is nothing but an
abuse of the process of the law and has
been rightly dismissed by the court below.

18. I have considered the rival
submissions of the parties and perused the
record.
606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. I will first deal with the argument
of the learned counsel for the petitioner in
respect to the order of the court below on
application 123Ga.

20. The facts as emerging out from
the record are that the suit has been
instituted in the year 2010. One of the
grounds on which the eviction has been
sought is that the petitioner has made
material alteration in the disputed shop.
The petitioner has filed written statement
in January 2011 wherein he has referred
the rent deed dated 26.12.1986 in
paragraph
17
in
reference
to
the
institution of suit No.8 of 1994 by the
father of respondent Roshan Lal Saigal
against petitioner for eviction on the
ground of arrears of rent. The petitioner
has not detailed about the terms and
conditions of the rent deed which
permitted him to carry out modification
or alternation in the disputed shop in the
written statement. The petitioner in
paragraphs 25 to 27 of the written
statement has denied carrying out any
material alteration in the disputed shop. It
would be worth to extract paragraphs 17
and 25 to 27 of the written statement
hereinbelow:-

"17. यह तक इसके बाि िािी
के तपिा िृिक रोशनलाल सहगल ने
उिरिािा प्रतििािी को िंग ि परेशान
करने के उद्देश्य से एक लघुिाि संख्या 8
सन 94 रोशनलाल सहगल बनाि यूपेंद्र
कुिार कालरा बाबि तकराया बेिखली
न्यायालय तजला जज िेरठ िें इस कथन
के साथ योतजि तकया तक तिनांक
26.12.86 को हुए इकरारनािा द्वारा
तकराया तिनांक 1.12.91 से अंकन 1045/-
रु० िय पाया गया जो प्रतििािी ने अिा
नहीं तकया िथा प्रतििािी के तिरुद्ध झूठे ि्
आधारहीन आरोप लगािे हुए िाि योतजि
तकया. इस िाि िें उिरिािा प्रतििािी ने
अपना प्रतििािपत्र प्रस्तुि करिे हुए
तकराया अंकन 1045/- रु० िें िैक्स आति
जोड़िे हुए िातक भतिष्य िें कोई तितधक
व्यिधान उत्पन्न न हो अंकन 1111/- रु०
प्रतििाह की िर से िय ब्याज आति खचाग
न्यायालय िें जिा तकया िथा िाि के
तनस्तारण िक इसी िर से तकराया
न्यायालय िें जिा करिा रहा. ििुपरांि
उक्त िाि तिनांक 30.3.2002 को न्यायालय
अपर तजला जज कोिग न. 8 िेरठ द्वारा
तिशेि व्यय अंकन 3000/- रु०. सतहि
खंतडि हुआ. जो िृिक रोशनलाल अथिा
उनकी िृत्युपरांि िािी ने आज िक भी
अिा नहीं तकया.

25. यह की िािी का कथन तक
उिरिािा प्रतििािी ने िुकान तििातिि िें
जानबूझकर सुब्स्स्टेन्शल डैिेज करिे हुए
धारा 7 िािपत्र िें कॉलि (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)
तिए गये िणागनुसार िूकान िें छति काररि
की है गलि है बब्लि उिरिािा प्रतििािी ने
िुकान तििातिि िें कोई छति तकसी प्रकार
की जैसा िािी ने अपने िािपत्र िें उल्लेब्लखि
तकया है नहीं की. िािी ने उिरिािा
प्रतििािी के तिरुद्ध झूठे ि् आधारहीन
आरोप लगाकर उक्त िाि योतजि कर तिया
है. िास्ति िें िािी के तपिा िृिक
रोशनलाल ने उिरिािा प्रतििािी को जैसी
िुकान तकराया पर िी िैसी ही िुकान अब
िक चली आ रही है. उिरिािा प्रतििािी ने
िुकान तििातिि िें िुकान तकराये पर लेने
के तिनांक से आज िक ऐसा कोई कायग
नहीं तकया तजससे िूकान की उपयोतगिा
अथिा बाजारी कीिि िें कोई किी आई
6 All. Yupender Kalra Vs. Pradeep Saigal
607
हो न ही प्रतििािी ने िुकान तििातिि िें
कोई छति काररि की. सिस्त कथन िािी
झूठा ि् बेबुतनयाि है जो उसने िाि
योतजि करने के उद्देश्य से तलखा है और
उसका िािी कोई लाभ प्राप्त करने का
अतधकारी नहीं है.

26. यह की िािी का कथन तक
उिरिािा प्रतििािी ने िािी की तबना
अनुिति प्राप्त तकये िुकान तििातिि िें
सुब्स्स्टेन्शल डैिेज करिे हुए कतथि तनिागण
कर सािगभूि पररििगन करिे हुए िुकान
को तडसतिगर कर तिया तजससे िुकान
की कीिि ि् उपयोतगिा िें किी हुई है
और प्रतििािी धारा 20 (2) सी अतधतनयि
13 सन 72 के िहि कातबले बेिखली है
गलि है. जब उिरिािा प्रतििािी ने िुकान
तकराये पर लेने के तिनांक से आज िक
िुकान िें कुछ तकया ही नहीं िो
उिरिािा प्रतििािी का धारा 20 (2) सी
अतधतनयि 13 सन 72 का उलंघन करने
अथिा उसके िहि बेिखल होने का कोई
प्रश्न उत्पन्न नहीं होिा. सिस्त कथन िािी
झूठा िथा बेबुतनयाि है को उसने अपने
िािपत्र को रंगि िेने के उद्देश्य से तलखा
है और उिरिािा प्रतििािी को स्वीकार
नहीं है.

27. यह तक िािी ने अपने
िािपत्र की धारा 8 िें कॉलि (i) ि् (ii) िें
तजस कतथि तििरण का उल्लेख तकया है
िह झूठा िथा बेबुतनयाि है. िास्ति िें
उिरिािा प्रतििािी ने िुकान तििातिि िें
कोई छति तकसी प्रकार की नहीं पहुचाई
है. न ही िािी द्वारा तकये गये कतथि
तििरण के अनुसार कोई डैिेज तकया न
अल्टरेशन तकया न पररििगन तकया न
तनिागण तकया. न ही ऐसा कोई कायग तकया
तजससे िुकान की उपयोतगिा अथिा
कीिि िें कोई किी उत्पन्न हो. न िुकान
को तडसतिगर तकया. सिस्त कथन िािी
झूठा ि बेबुतनयाि है जो उिरिािा
प्रतििािी को स्वीकार नहीं है."

21. It is also evident from the
application 123Ga that the argument of the
respondent was concluded and the suit was
fixed for the argument of petitioner, and at
that point of time, the application 123Ga
was filed after a delay of about eight years.
The only explanation for the delay tendered
by the petitioner in the application is that
during the course of preparation of the
case, he found the rent deed in the record
and filed application 123Ga without any
delay. The trial court found the explanation
for the delay of eight years in filing the
application unacceptable, accordingly, it
dismissed the application holding that the
application 123Ga has been filed only with
the purpose to delay the disposal of the suit.

22. The revision court also found no
illegality in the order of the trial court dated
27.09.2017
dismissing
the
application
123Ga and held that the rent deed is
insufficiently
stamped
and
is
an
unregistered document, therefore, it is
inadmissible in evidence. It, accordingly,
rejected the revision of the petitioner.

23. It is pertinent to notice that
petitioner had filed evidence in the year
2012 and 2013, but he did not file the rent
deed. There is no averment in the
application 123Ga about his endeavours in
finding out the rent deed in the last eight
years. The explanation tendered by the
petitioner for the delay in filing the
application 123Ga is not believable for the
reason that the case was pending for the
last eight years and several dates had been
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fixed in the case on which petitioner must
have flipped through the record of the case,
it is very strange that he could not lay his
hands to the rent deed while preparing the
case in the last eight years and he
surreptitiously got it just before the date
fixed for his argument. In this view of the
fact, the petitioner has failed to give a
reasonable and satisfactory explanation for
the inordinate delay of eight years in filing
the application.

24. Further, the revision court while
affirming the order of trial court rejecting
application 123Ga found the rent deed is
inadmissible in evidence since it is
insufficiently stamped and an unregistered
document.

25. The petitioner in application
123Ga has stated that he has carried out
alteration in the disputed shop in terms of
rent deed dated 26.12.1986, therefore, in
the interest of justice and for proper
adjudication of the case, the rent deed may
be taken on record, but no such case has
been set up by the petitioner in the written
statement. Petitioner has referred the rent
deed in paragraph 17 of the written
statement in a different context and not in
reference to the terms and conditions of the
rent deed under which he had carried out
alternation in the disputed shop. The
petitioner has denied the fact of material
alteration which is evident from paragraph
no. 25 to 27 of the written statement
extracted above.

26. From the facts detailed above, it is
apparent that it is not the case of the
petitioner in the written statement that he
has made material alteration in the disputed
shop in terms of rent deed, therefore, the
rent deed cannot be read in evidence in the
absence of any pleading by the petitioner in
the written statement. So, the petitioner
cannot take the help of rent deed to negate
the case of the respondent of material
alteration of the petitioner. Further, the fact
that the Petitioner acknowledges that the
rent deed is insufficiently stamped is
manifest from the act of the petitioner as he
did not challenge the order of the court
below dismissing the application 123GA
rather he filed an application 155Ga with a
prayer to impound the rent deed and direct
the authorities to accept deficient stamp
duty, compounding fee and penalty from
him. The aforesaid fact reflects that the
purpose of filing the application123Ga that
too after eight years is to delay the disposal
of the suit. Thus, this Court does not find
any error or illegality in the order dated
27.09.2017 rejecting the application 123Ga
and the order of revision court dated
20.03.2018 affirming the order of the trial
court dated 27.09.2017.

27. Now, I will consider the legality
of orders on application 155Ga. The court
below in deciding application 155Ga
observed that the petitioner's application
123Ga to accept the rent deed on record has
been rejected by the trial court which order
was affirmed by the revision court, and
those two orders have not been assailed by
the petitioner, therefore they have attained
finality. Accordingly, it concluded that
since the rent deed has not been accepted
on record, it cannot be impounded.

28. This Court has upheld the order of
the trial court and revision court rejecting
the application 123Ga of the petitioner. The
court
can
impound
an
insufficiently
stamped document and direct to proceed in
the manner provided under Sections 33, 35
& 38 of the Act, 1899 as held by the Apex
Court in the case of SMS Tea Estates
Private
Limited
(supra)
when
the
6 All. Yupender Kalra Vs. Pradeep Saigal
609
document has been accepted on record
which is not the case here. Thus, the
argument of counsel for the petitioner on
the strength of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of SMS Tea Estates
Private Limited (supra) is not sustainable
and rejected.

29. About the submission of the
respondent that application 155Ga is barred
by principles of resjudicata as provided in
Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code,1908, it
is to be noted that the provision of resjudicata is based upon the principle that
there
shall
be
no
multiplicity
of
proceedings and there shall be the finality
of proceedings. It is apt to refer to the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Darayo & Others Vs. State Of U.P. (1962)
1 SCR 574 wherein it has been held that the
principles of re-judicata will apply to
proceedings under Article 32 & 226 of the
Constitution of India. Paragraph No.9 of
the judgment of Darayo is reproduced
hereunder :

" 9. But, is the rule of res judicata
merely a technical rule or is it based on
high public policy ? If the rule of res
judicata itself embodies a principle of
public policy which in turn is an essential
part of the rule of law then the objection
that the rule cannot be invoked where
fundamental rights are in question may
lose much of its validity. Now, the rule of
res judicata as indicated in s. 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure has no doubt some
technical aspects, for instance the rule of
constructive res judicata may be said to be
technical; but the basis on which the said
rule rests is founded on considerations of
public policy. It is in the interest of the
public at large that a finality should attach
to the binding decisions pronounced by
Courts of competent jurisdiction, and it is
also in the public interest that individuals
should not be vexed twice over with the
same kind of litigation. If these two
principles form the foundation of the
general rule of res judicata they cannot be
treated as irrelevant or inadmissible even
in dealing with fundamental rights in
petitions filed under Art. 32.

30. It would also be appropriate to
refer paragraph no.39 of Asha Agarwal
(Smt.) and Others Vs. M/S Arvind & Co.
and Others 2015 All. C.J. 552 which reads
as under:

"39. It is well established that the
principle of resjudicata enshrined under
Section 11 C.P.C. is equally applicable in
respect of the decisions rendered at
successive stages of the suit. Thus, even
interlocutory orders passed at different
stages of a suit have the binding effect
provided the decision is rendered on
merits."

31. In the present case, the petitioner
has filed application 123Ga with a prayer to
accept the rent deed on record which was
rejected by the trial court. The order of the
trial court was affirmed by the revision
court on the ground that the rent deed is
inadmissible
in
evidence
as
it
is
insufficiently
stamped
and
is
an
unregistered
document.
Instead
of
challenging, the aforesaid two orders,
petitioner acquiesced to the finding of the
revision court that the rent deed is
insufficiently
stamped
and
preferred
another application 155Ga with a prayer
that the rent deed may be impounded and
send to the authorities with a direction to
accept
the
deficient
stamp
duty,
compounding fee and penalty from the
petitioner. The prayer made by the
petitioner in Application155Ga could have
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been made by him in application 123Ga
since the petitioner knew that the document
is insufficiently stamped and is not
admissible in evidence. Therefore, applying
the ratio laid down in the above-referred
cases,
this
court
finds
that
Application155Ga is barred by principles
of constructive res-judicata.

32.

Thus,
given
the
above
discussion, this court does not find any
illegality in the orders passed by the trial
court as well as revision court in rejecting
application 155Ga.

33. Consequently, for the reasons
given above, the writ petition under Article
227 of Constitution of India lacks merit and
is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
----------
(2020)06ILR A610
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9782 of 2019
(Civil)

Shamshul Hasan ...Petitioner
Versus
Saleem Khan & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manish :Tandon

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Siya Ram Verma, Sri Prateek Sinha

U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 -Section 21 (1) (a)
-Landlord-Respondents filed suit for release of
suit
property-against
Petitioner-tenant-It
is
barred by mandatory provision of section 21 (1)
(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972-not complied-as 6
months
mandatory
notice
not
given
to
Petitioner-Impugned orders of Court belowillegal.

Writ Petition allowed . (E-9)

List of cases cited:-

1. Lakshmi Shankar Mishra Vs. Smt. Vineeta
Richhriya 2017 (2) ARC 754

2. Abdul Jabbar Vs. VIIth ADJ, Gorakhpur 1989 (1)
ARC 277

3. Writ A No.72134 of 2010 (Anoop Kumar and
Others Vs. Doongermal Singodiya and Another)

4. Writ A No.12289 of 2019 (Pradeep Kumar @
Pradeep and Another Vs. Smt. Meena Devi Sahu
and Another).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Prateek Sinha, Advocate
holding brief of Sri Siya Ram Verma, learned
counsel for the respondent.

2. Petitioner is a tenant of Aahata No.565
Quarter No.3 (565/3), Rail Bazar, Meerpur
Cantt., Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as
'suit property') at Rs.60/- per month. The
petitioner has assailed the judgement and order
dated
14.12.2017
passed
by
Prescribed
Authority/Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division),
Kanpur Nagar allowing the release application
instituted by respondent nos.1 & 2 registered as
Rent Case No.16 of 2013 (Saleem Khan and
Another Vs. Shamshul Hasan) and order dated
06.09.2019 passed by Additional District Judge,
Court No.12, Kanpur Nagar dismissing the
Rent Appeal No.4 of 2018.
3.

The
respondent nos.1 and 2 being owner and
landlord of the suit property filed an
application under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P.
Act No.13 of 1972 for release of the suit
property. It is stated in the release
application that the respondents have