The petitioner challenged the issuance of Form C against a landlord of his father's former tenancy. The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit as no evidence was produced to prove an independent tenancy in a separate portion of the building.
The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
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. - 19
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27818 of 2018
Petitioner :- Vishwanath Dixit Respondent :- District Judge, Kanpur Nagar And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Virendra Kumar
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition is directed against the order dated 21.8.2018 passed by District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 22/2018 dismissing the same and the order dated 7.5.2018 passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer directing for issuance of form 'C' and form 'C' issued in pursuance thereof dated 10.5.2018.
The undisputed fact is that father of the petitioner Ram Jiwan Dixit was tenant of a premises on first floor of house No. 13/101, Parmat, Kanpur Nagar. He had four sons, one amongst them being the petitioner herein. Two of his sons acquired another accommodation within same municipal limits consequently, the premises under his tenancy was declared vacant by order dated 18.11.2013 followed by an order of release in favour of landlord. These orders were subjected to challenge before the Revisional Court, but the revision was dismissed. The matter was taken up to this Court by the mother of the petitioner Smt. Munni Devi, as the father had died. The writ petition filed by her bearing No. 3293 of 2018 was dismissed on 30.1.2018. The petitioner and one of his other brother in their capacity as heirs and legal representatives of deceased Munni Devi carried the matter before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 10520 of 2018, but it was dismissed on 12.7.2018. The petitioner at the stage of issuance of form 'C' filed a revision contending that under the garb of delivering possession of the premises in
possession of his late father Ram Jiwan Dixit, in respect whereof, vacancy was declared, efforts are being made to dispossess the petitioner from a separate and distinct portion under his tenancy in the same building. The Revisional Court, after noticing that no such plea was taken by the mother of the petitioner while the matter was agitated before this Court by way of writ petition nor by the petitioner in the SLP filed by him, repelled the same. The Revisional Court has noted that on the contrary, the petitioner claimed tenancy rights in respect of the tenement with regard to which, vacancy was declared.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to place before this Court any evidence to prove that there was any separate tenancy in respect of a different tenement in his favour. No rent receipt has been filed by the petitioner showing payment of rent to any person in respect of alleged separate tenancy. It is also not disputed that the petitioner along with his brother had filed SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the order declaring vacancy and the release order as well as the judgment of this Court, but wherein, no plea of independent tenancy was taken by him. The vacancy order specifies the portion in respect of which vacancy has been declared and indisputably, form 'C' has been issued. The release order also specifically gives detail of the portion of the building which has been released in favour of the landlord. The order passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer dated 7.5.2018 specifically takes note of the extent of accommodation in respect of which release order was passed. This Court is unable to accept the contention with regard to independent tenancy, as set-up by the petitioner nor is ready to accept that under the garb of executing the release order, possession of any other portion would be delivered to the landlord.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 8.1.2019 AM/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner could prove an independent tenancy in a separate portion of the building apart from the vacancy declares premises.
Whether the execution of a release order permitted delivery of possession of another portion under the garb of tenancy rights.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vishwanath Dixit
District Judge, Kanpur Nagar
4 Others
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
