Sanjay Kumar and others v. Panchayati Akhada Nirmala

Judgment

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioners assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar in SCC Suit No. 42 of 1995, Panchayati Akhada Nirmala v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors., and the judgment dated 14.07.2023 passed by the 1stAdditional District Judge, Haridwar in SCC Revision No. 38 of 2013.

2. The Respondent had instituted SCC Suit No. 42 of 1995, claiming ownership over the suit premises and seeking eviction of the Petitioners, treating them as tenants. The Petitioners filed a Written Statement disputing the claim and raised the plea of applicability of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972).

3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Respondent moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC (Paper No. 130C) on

03.01.2013 to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one. The trial Writ Petition No. 24 of 2024, Sanjay Kumar and OrsVsPanchayati Akhada Nirmala- 1 Ashish Naithani J. court initially allowed the application on 10.01.2013. However, in SCC Revision No. 06 of 2013, the revisional court on 09.07.2013 remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration of the said application after affording opportunity to both sides.

4. Upon remand, the trial court on 10.10.2013 permitted unilateral withdrawal of the application Paper No. 130C and decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent. The Petitioners’ subsequent SCC Revision No. 38 of 2013 was dismissed by the 1stAdditional District Judge on

14.07.2023.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued that the entire proceedings culminating in the decree dated 10.10.2013 are vitiated. The trial court acted in violation of the specific directions of the revisional court dated 09.07.2013. Instead of reconsidering Paper No.

130C after affording hearing to both parties, the trial court permitted its unilateral withdrawal and proceeded to decree the suit, thereby denying the Petitioners an effective opportunity to contest the issue.

6. It was urged that the argument of the Respondent that the premise is a “public religious and charitable institution” hence exempt under Section 2(1)(bb) of the Act of 1972 is wholly perverse. No evidence was adduced to establish continuous charitable or religious activity. The mere fact of registration or occasional organization of “bhandara” at the time of Kumbh cannot confer the character of a public charitable institution. Reliance was placed upon the definitions of “charitable institution” and “religious institution” under Sections 3(r) and 3(s) of the Act, 1972. Writ Petition No. 24 of 2024, Sanjay Kumar and OrsVsPanchayati Akhada Nirmala- 2 Ashish Naithani J.

7. The Petitioners also contended that the tenancy, even if admitted, was year-to-year and could not be terminated by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882. The 30-day notice relied upon by the Respondent was invalid, rendering the proceedings unsustainable.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that both courts below failed to appreciate that the Respondent’s own conductfiling Paper No. 130C to withdraw the suit on account of defects in the plaint, demonstrates that the plaint was not maintainable. Instead of dismissing the suit, the trial court decreed it mechanically, ignoring the admissions of the Respondent itself.

9. It was argued that the orders passed are cryptic, perverse, and non-speaking, having ignored vital pleas and evidence raised by the Petitioners. The judgments are therefore unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.

10. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Respondent, supported the concurrent findings of the courts below. It was contended that the Respondent, being a registered religious body, is exempt from the provisions of the Rent Control Act by virtue of Section 2(1)(bb).

11. It was argued that the Respondent society, by its very constitution and practice of organizing religious and charitable functions, falls within the meaning of a public religious and charitable institution. The trial court rightly recognized its character and decreed the suit.

12. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Petitioners have been in unlawful occupation of the premises for decades. Their repeated Writ Petition No. 24 of 2024, Sanjay Kumar and OrsVsPanchayati Akhada Nirmala- 3 Ashish Naithani J. challenges are dilatory in nature and designed to defeat lawful possession of the Respondent.

13. It was also urged that the scope of Article 227 jurisdiction is narrow. Interference with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the revisional court is not warranted unless manifest illegality or perversity is demonstrated. No such ground has been made out in the present petition.

14. It was therefore submitted that the writ petition is misconceived and deserves dismissal.

16. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. The record shows that the Respondent moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC (Paper No. 130C) on 03.01.2013, acknowledging that the plaint suffered from defects and seeking liberty to file a fresh suit. The trial court initially allowed the application on

10.01.2013. The order was set aside in SCC Revision No. 06 of 2013, and the revisional court required the trial court to reconsider the application after giving full opportunity of hearing to both parties. However, instead of doing so, the trial court on 10.10.2013 permitted unilateral withdrawal of Paper No. 130C and simultaneously decreed the suit. Such a procedure is not only contrary to the revisional directions but also amounts to short-circuiting the process of adjudication.

17. The finding that the Respondent is a public religious and charitable institution exempt under Section 2(1)(bb) of the 1972 Act also cannot be upheld. Exemption from a beneficial statute must be Writ Petition No. 24 of 2024, Sanjay Kumar and OrsVsPanchayati Akhada Nirmala- 4 Ashish Naithani J. strictly proved. The courts below appear to have presumed the Respondent’s status solely on the basis of incidental activities such as organizing bhandaras at the time of Kumbh. Such occasional or customary acts do not, by themselves, establish the continuous charitable or religious functions required to claim statutory exemption. The definitions of “charitable institution” and “religious institution” under the Act emphasize an element of continuity and public character. In the absence of concrete evidence demonstrating that the Respondent is engaged in ongoing charitable or religious work of a public nature, the benefit of Section 2(1)(bb) cannot be extended.

18. The objection as to authorization also carries considerable weight. The suit was signed and instituted by the Secretary of the Respondent, whereas the Rules of the Akhada confer the authority to institute legal proceedings upon the President. It is settled that proceedings must be instituted by a person duly authorized under the constitution of the body. Failure to establish such authorization vitiates the very institution of the suit. Both the trial court and the revisional court overlooked this basic objection, which goes to the very maintainability of the action.

19. The Petitioners further raised the plea that the tenancy, even if assumed, was year-to-year and incapable of being terminated by a notice of 30 days under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. This issue was specifically pleaded, yet neither the trial court nor the revisional court has recorded any finding on it. The omission to address a material issue, once raised, constitutes a serious error of jurisdiction. The courts were expected to frame and decide the point, particularly as it had a direct bearing on the legality of the decree of eviction. Writ Petition No. 24 of 2024, Sanjay Kumar and OrsVsPanchayati Akhada Nirmala- 5 Ashish Naithani J.

20. The record also indicates that the Respondent had previously instituted SCC Suit No. 18 of 1987 on substantially similar grounds, which stood dismissed in 1995. Without curing the earlier defects, the Respondent proceeded to re-litigate the matter by filing SCC Suit No. 42 of 1995. The practice of repeated institution of proceedings without addressing foundational infirmities undermines judicial process and burdens both parties and the courts.

21. In supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court does not ordinarily reappraise facts, but it is well-settled that interference is warranted where findings are perverse, material pleas have been ignored, or directions of a superior court have been bypassed. In the present case, all three infirmities are evident. The trial court disregarded the revisional directions, presumed statutory exemption without evidence, and failed to consider crucial objections as to authorization and validity of notice. The revisional court, instead of correcting these errors, simply upheld them. Such concurrent findings, when founded on misdirection in law and non-consideration of vital issues, cannot be permitted to stand.

22. For these reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2013 and the revisional judgment dated 14.07.2023 are unsustainable in law. They deserve to be set aside, with a remand to the trial court for fresh consideration of Paper No. 130C, in conformity with law and in compliance with the earlier revisional directions. ORDER For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. Writ Petition No. 24 of 2024, Sanjay Kumar and OrsVsPanchayati Akhada Nirmala- 6 Ashish Naithani J. Arti DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH ARTI SINGH The judgment and decree dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar in SCC Suit No. 42 of 1995, Panchayati Akhada Nirmala v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors., as well as the judgment dated 14.07.2023 passed by the 1stAdditional District Judge, Haridwar in SCC Revision No. 38 of 2013, Sanjay Kumar and Ors. v. Panchayati Akhada Nirmala, are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration of Paper No. 130C (application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC) in accordance with law and in strict compliance with the directions earlier issued by the revisional court in judgment dated 09.07.2013. (Ashish Naithani J.) 07.10.2025 Writ Petition No. 24 of 2024, Sanjay Kumar and OrsVsPanchayati Akhada Nirmala- 7 Ashish Naithani J.