This Article 227 writ petition challenged the lower courts' finding that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was inapplicable to a shop constructed in 1993, rendering the eviction decree valid. The High Court found no error of law and dismissed the petition in its entirety.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8002 of 2019
Petitioner :- Husain Khan And 8 Others Respondent :- Ashish And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Bahadur Yadav
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri K.K. Tiwari, holding brief of Sri S.B. Yadav, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioners and Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/respondents.
Briefly stated facts of the present case are that admittedly the plaintifflandlord/respondents are the owner and landlord of the disputed shop No.82/2, Azadganj, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi in which the defendanttenant/petitioners are the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.125/-. It has been admitted by the defendant-tenant/petitioners that the disputed shop was constructed in the year 1993. According to the defendant-tenant/petitioners they were old tenant but subsequently the entire building was demolished and new building was constructed in the year 1993 in which the plaintiff's father has occupied the disputed shop as tenant in the year 1993 in view of the earlier tenancy. Both the courts below have considered the submissions and evidence on record and held that since the disputed building was constructed in the year 1993, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The SCC Suit No.50 of 2009 (Ashish Vs. Husain Khan and Others), was decreed by judgment dated 15.05.2013, passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Jhansi, and a decree of eviction was passed. In SCC Revision No.51 of 2013 (Husain Khan and Others Vs. Ashish and others) filed by the defendant-tenant/petitioners challenging the judgment of the Judge Small Causes Court, has been dismissed by the impugned
judgment dated 30.11.2018. Aggrieved with these two judgments the defendant-tenant/petitioners have filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners submits that the petitioners were old tenants, and therefore, the courts below have committed a manifest error of law to hold that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable.
No other points have been argued before me by learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents supports the impugned judgment.
I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.
According to own case of the defendant-tenant/petitioner the disputed shop is part of the new building constructed in the year 1993 or 1995. Thus, both the courts below have not committed any manifest error of law to hold that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable.
In view of the aforestated, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgments. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 11.11.2019/vkg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the courts below committed a manifest error of law in holding that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to a shop constructed in 1993.
Husain Khan and 8 Others
Ashish and 4 Others
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
