Ramesh Kumar and Another v. Smt. Raj Kumari

property was originally owned by Shri Raja Ram, who had purchased it vide sale deed dated 29.01.1975 from Lt. Col. James Harris (Retired). Shri Raja Ram continued to remain its absolute owner until his death on

23.11.1981.

3. During his lifetime, a portion of the property comprising four rooms, a covered verandah, a courtyard, a latrine, a bath and a tin shed WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2302 OF 2017, Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari - 1 Ashish Naithani J. kitchen had been allotted on 01.06.1970 to Smt. Kamlesh, the elder sister of Petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2, who married Petitioner No. 1 in 1972, resided with her sister in the allotted accommodation. It is the case of the Petitioners that Shri Raja Ram treated Petitioner No. 2 as his daughter and relied upon her for care and assistance during his lifetime, and that he executed a Will dated 20.02.1976 bequeathing the portion in question to her.

4. After the death of Shri Raja Ram, Petitioner No. 2 claims to have become the absolute owner of the accommodation on the strength of the said Will. It is further asserted that Smt. Kamlesh constructed a separate residence in the year 1977, shifted thereto permanently, and surrendered her tenancy rights in favour of Petitioner No. 2, who continued in uninterrupted occupation of the premises thereafter.

5. On 21.12.1987, the Respondent filed an application under Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act, 1972, alleging vacancy. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report dated 19.01.1988. The Petitioners filed objections dated 02.02.1989 disputing the vacancy and asserting ownership of Petitioner No. 2.

6. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the release application on 24.04.1991. In Rent Control Revision No. 32 of 1991, the revisional court allowed the revision on 25.08.1994, set aside the rejection order, and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the questions of vacancy and title. The Petitioners challenged the remand before the High WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2302 OF 2017, Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari - 2 Ashish Naithani J. Court of Judicature at Allahabad, but their writ petition was dismissed on

18.03.1999.

7. Upon remand, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the accommodation vacant on 07.01.2002 and passed the release order on

12.01.2005 in favour of the Respondent. The Petitioners challenged both orders in Rent Control Revision No. 1 of 2005. The District Judge allowed the revision on 05.03.2005 and set aside the vacancy and release orders.

8. The Respondent challenged the revisional order before this Court in Writ Petition No. 301 of 2005. By judgment dated 04.10.2016, this Court set aside the revisional order dated 05.03.2005 and directed the District Judge, Dehradun, to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law.

9. Contrary to this direction, the revision was taken up not by the District Judge but by the III Additional District Judge, who dismissed it on

05.08.2017 and affirmed the vacancy and release orders. Hence, the present writ petition.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the judgment dated 05.08.2017 is without jurisdiction since this Court had specifically directed the District Judge to decide the revision afresh. It was contended that the direction was person-specific and required the District Judge himself to hear and decide the matter. It was next contended that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer erred in declaring the accommodation vacant despite the continuous and lawful occupation of Petitioner No. 2 as owner. WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2302 OF 2017, Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari - 3 Ashish Naithani J.

11. The Petitioners contended that the alleged vacancy was contrary to Section 12 of the Act and that the authority failed to consider the existence of the Will and the alleged surrender of tenancy by Smt. Kamlesh. It was also urged that the Rent Control authorities and the revisional court exceeded their jurisdiction by undertaking an elaborate adjudication upon the validity of the Will, which is a matter strictly within the domain of the civil court.

12. Learned counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned orders. He submitted that the vacancy was correctly declared as the original tenant had ceased to occupy the premises. It was further argued that the Petitioners failed to establish lawful occupation or ownership and that the Will relied upon by them was unproven.

13. It was contended that the Additional District Judge was competent to decide the revision since the revisional jurisdiction is vested in courts subordinate to the District Judge under the administrative scheme.

14. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

15. This Court finds that the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2017 suffers from a jurisdictional infirmity. This Court, while deciding Writ Petition No. 301 of 2005, had specifically directed the District Judge, Dehradun, to decide the revision afresh. The direction was clear and unambiguous and required the District Judge personally to exercise revisional jurisdiction. Once a superior court remands a matter to a WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2302 OF 2017, Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari - 4 Ashish Naithani J. specified authority, the jurisdiction becomes person-specific and is incapable of further delegation unless permitted by the remanding court. The III Additional District Judge was therefore not competent to decide the remanded revision. The judgment dated 05.08.2017 accordingly stands vitiated for want of jurisdiction.

16. Even otherwise, the vacancy order dated 07.01.2002 does not withstand scrutiny. Section 12 of the Act contemplates vacancy only when the tenant ceases to occupy the building voluntarily or when statutory conditions indicative of vacancy stand satisfied. The record indicates that Petitioner No. 2 has been in continuous occupation of the accommodation since 1972. The Petitioners raised a specific plea that Smt. Kamlesh had surrendered her tenancy rights and that Petitioner No. 2 was occupying the premises as owner under the Will executed by Shri Raja Ram.

17. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not adequately examine these aspects. Vacancy cannot be presumed merely upon the shifting of the original tenant without examining whether the subsequent occupation was lawful or ratified by the landlord. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer failed to undertake this enquiry and proceeded on a mechanical assumption of vacancy.

18. Furthermore, the revisional court travelled beyond the limits of its jurisdiction by entering into questions relating to the validity of the Will and ownership of the premises. Authorities acting under Sections 12 and 16 of the Act cannot adjudicate complex questions of title, particularly when parallel civil proceedings concerning the same subject matter exist. The findings recorded on the genuineness of the Will and the competence WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2302 OF 2017, Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari - 5 Ashish Naithani J. of the testator pertain to matters exclusively triable by a civil court and hence are without jurisdiction.

19. The cumulative effect of these infirmities renders the vacancy order dated 07.01.2002 and the release order dated 12.01.2005 unsustainable. The revisional judgment dated 05.08.2017, being contrary to the judicial direction issued by this Court and being founded upon findings recorded without jurisdiction, cannot be allowed to stand. ORDER The writ petition is allowed. The judgment dated 05.08.2017 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in Rent Control Revision No. 1 of 2005 is set aside. The vacancy order dated 07.01.2002 and the release order dated

12.01.2005 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun are quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. Arti (Ashish Naithani J.)

02.12.2025 WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2302 OF 2017, Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari - 6 Ashish Naithani J.