Smt. Kalavati (deceased) through LRs and others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another Ashish Naithani J

Judgment

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 2018, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed, affirming the order dated 26.06.2018 of the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in P.A. Case No. 8 of 2008 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, allowing the release Application of the Respondents in respect of premises No. 118, Araghar, Dehradun.

2. The property was originally under tenancy of Sri Mahavir, predecessor of the petitioners, under landlord Surajmal. In O.S. No. 424 of 1969, Mahavir sought a permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit was dismissed on 06.06.1970, but decreed in appeal on 21.12.1970, directing demolition of constructions raised by the landlord. In Second Writ Petition No. 1387 of 2025, Smt. Kalavati (deceased) through LRs and others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another Ashish Naithani J. 1 Appeal No. 429 of 1971, the High Court modified the decree on

18.07.1980, permitting retention of construction on delivery of possession, failing which the decree of demolition would operate.

3. Execution Case No. 23 of 1987 followed, in which objections

were filed by Pyare Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi, the parents of the present Respondents, are asserting tenancy rights. Pyare Lal also instituted O.S. No. 269 of 1988 challenging the decree, but his amendment Application to set up ownership was rejected in 2001, and the suit itself was dismissed on 05.03.2013.

4. Meanwhile, the Respondents, claiming rights through sale deeds dated 13.05.1985 and 23.02.1999 executed in favour of one Sharad Kumar and thereafter in their favour, instituted P.A. Case No. 8 of 2008 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, 1972, seeking release on bona fide need. The petitioners denied any landlord–tenant relationship, disputed admissibility of the sale deeds, alleged sufficiency of the Respondents’ accommodation, and pleaded that the premises were a dilapidated structure not falling within “building” as defined in Section 3(i) of the Act.

5. During proceedings, petitioners moved the Application no. 135A seeking production of original sale deeds, which was rejected on

30.03.2018, and the writ petition challenging the order was dismissed on 23.04.2018. Their Application No. 55A questioning jurisdiction was also disposed of on 24.04.2018 with a direction to consider it at the Writ Petition No. 1387 of 2025, Smt. Kalavati (deceased) through LRs and others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another Ashish Naithani J. 2 final stage. The Prescribed Authority thereafter allowed the release Application on 26.06.2018.

6. Petitioners preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 2018. During the appeal, Respondents filed affidavits setting up additional need for the sons of Respondent No. 1. Petitioners filed an objection (Application no. 86A) contending that, without amendment, such affidavits could not be considered. By order dated 07.01.2020, the Appellate Court directed that the issue be considered at final judgment. Respondents also filed an Application no. 171A under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for the production of original sale deeds, which was allowed on

06.01.2024 with a direction to consider them at the time of the decision.

7. By judgment dated 30.04.2025, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the release, while relying upon the additional need projected in affidavits without amendment of pleadings, and without adverting to the directions in its earlier orders dated 07.01.2020 and

06.01.2024.

8. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the very foundation of the proceedings is unsustainable, inasmuch as there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was contended that neither any tenancy agreement was executed nor has rent ever been demanded or paid to the Respondents. In the absence of Writ Petition No. 1387 of 2025, Smt. Kalavati (deceased) through LRs and others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another Ashish Naithani J. 3 such privity of contract, the Application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not maintainable.

10. It was urged that the Prescribed Authority lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon intricate questions of title. Specific objections were raised through the written statement as well as Application paper No. 55A. Despite this, the Prescribed Authority proceeded to rely upon the alleged sale deeds dated 13.05.1985 and 23.02.1999. These documents, however, were never proved in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Respondents’ claim was founded solely on photocopies of these documents, which could not be taken into consideration.

11. Learned counsel placed reliance on Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, (1976) 4 SCC 184, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that questions of title cannot be conclusively determined in rent control proceedings and that the inquiry is confined only to the existence of landlord–tenant relationship.

12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further argued that the Prescribed Authority itself, while rejecting the Application paper No. 135A, had observed that the validity of title deeds cannot be examined in summary proceedings under the Act. This Hon’ble Court also, while dismissing Writ Petition No. 936 of 2018, reiterated that the question of title was beyond the scope of proceedings under Section 21(1)(a). In the face of such categorical orders, the Prescribed Authority committed jurisdictional error in proceeding to record findings on ownership. Writ Petition No. 1387 of 2025, Smt. Kalavati (deceased) through LRs and others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another Ashish Naithani J. 4

13. It was also submitted that the release Application was defective for want of a statutory notice of six months as mandated by the proviso to Section 21(1)(a). Additionally, the release Application was confined only to part of the premises, which amounted to splitting of tenancy, a course impermissible in law.

14. It was further urged that during the pendency of the appeal, the Respondents, without amending their pleadings, introduced by way of affidavits an alleged subsequent need for the sons of respondent no. 1. Petitioners objected thereto by filing an Application paper no. 86A. The Appellate Court, by order dated 07.01.2020, directed that the issue shall be considered at the stage of judgment. However, in the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2025, the learned District Judge travelled beyond the pleadings and founded its conclusions on such additional alleged need. Thus, it was submitted, is contrary to the settled principle that no evidence beyond pleadings can be looked into, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Gupta (dead) through LRs v. Riyaz Ahmad & Another, (2009) 10 SCC 197.

15. It was also contended that the Appellate Court failed to consider Application paper No. 171-A filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC and the documents directed to be kept on record by order dated

06.01.2024. Non-consideration of such material evidence vitiates the findings.

16. Learned counsel for the Petitioners lastly urged that the findings on bona fide need are perverse. The disputed structure is a kutcha, dilapidated tenement, wholly incapable of serving the alleged need. The Writ Petition No. 1387 of 2025, Smt. Kalavati (deceased) through LRs and others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another Ashish Naithani J. 5 comparative hardship of the Petitioners, who are extremely poor and dependent on the premises for their livelihood and shelter, has not been taken into account. In contrast, the Respondents are financially well established and already possess sufficient accommodation. It was, therefore, submitted that both orders suffer from gross illegality, arbitrariness, and a failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law.

17. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents supported the impugned orders and submitted that the proceedings initiated under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were maintainable inasmuch as the Petitioners are in occupation of the disputed premises as tenants and the Respondents, having stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile landlord by virtue of registered sale deeds, are fully entitled to maintain the release Application. It was urged that once the landlord–tenant relationship is demonstrated prima facie, the Prescribed Authority is competent to adjudicate the claim of bona fide requirement.

18. It was further argued that the release Application had been filed on the ground of bona fide and genuine need for residential accommodation for the family members of the Respondents. The Prescribed Authority, after appreciating the evidence led by both parties, recorded a categorical finding that the need was bona fide.

19. Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted objections raised by the Petitioners regarding title are wholly irrelevant Writ Petition No. 1387 of 2025, Smt. Kalavati (deceased) through LRs and others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another Ashish Naithani J. 6 for the purpose of proceedings under Section 21(1)(a). The Act contemplates a summary procedure, and intricate questions of title are not to be examined. The Respondents relied upon the sale deeds only to establish their locus as landlords. Once that was demonstrated, neither the Prescribed Authority nor the Appellate Court was required to undertake a roving enquiry into the validity or correctness of those documents.

20. It was further contended that the additional affidavits filed by the Respondents during the pendency of the appeal only brought on record subsequent developments relating to the requirement of the growing family, particularly the sons of respondent No. 1. The alleged need, though elaborated in affidavits, was in continuation of the original plea of requirement and did not constitute an altogether new case. Courts, it was urged, are entitled to take into account subsequent events, especially when such events are relevant to the determination of bona fide need. The absence of a formal amendment in pleadings, therefore, is not fatal.

21. It was also urged that the plea of the Petitioners regarding the want of statutory notice and splitting of tenancy is misconceived. The release Application was with respect to the premises bona fide required by the landlords and was not barred by any procedural defect. Even if minor irregularities were assumed, the same cannot override the substantive right of a landlord to recover possession for his own genuine need. Writ Petition No. 1387 of 2025, Smt. Kalavati (deceased) through LRs and others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another Ashish Naithani J. 7

22. It was finally urged that the principle of comparative hardship also weighs in favour of the Respondents. The Petitioners, it was contended, are not without means or resources, whereas Respondents require the premises for their own residence. Both Courts below have found the need to be genuine and pressing. In such circumstances, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, ought not to reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings unless there is manifest perversity, which is not present in the case at hand.

24. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. The Petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the judgment dated 30.04.2025 of the learned District Judge, Dehradun, affirming the judgment dated 26.06.2018 of the Prescribed Authority, whereby the release Application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 preferred by the Respondents was allowed.

25. The first issue that requires determination is the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship between the parties. The Petitioners have categorically denied such a relationship, asserting that they never entered into tenancy with the Respondents, that there exists no rent agreement, and that no rent was ever demanded or paid. The Respondents, however, claimed to have stepped into the shoes of the landlord on the strength of registered sale deeds executed in their favour. Writ Petition No. 1387 of 2025, Smt. Kalavati (deceased) through LRs and others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another Ashish Naithani J. 8

26. Proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act are in the nature of summary proceedings. The Prescribed Authority is empowered only to examine whether the Petitioner can be treated as a landlord for the purposes of the Act, and whether the need set up is bona fide and genuine. A detailed adjudication on ownership or disputed title is beyond the jurisdiction of the forum.

27. In the present matter, though the Prescribed Authority had earlier observed, while rejecting Application paper No. 135A, that the question of title could not be gone into in such proceedings, it nevertheless proceeded in its final judgment to rely upon photocopies of sale deeds. It recorded a finding of ownership in favour of the Respondents. Such a course, in the considered view of this Court, was impermissible. The Prescribed Authority cannot adjudicate upon the validity, legality, or binding nature of title deeds, more so when such documents were not proved in accordance with the law.

28. The Petitioners had also raised a jurisdictional objection through Application No. 55A, contending that in the absence of an admitted tenancy or proof of privity of contract, the release Application itself was not maintainable. The Prescribed Authority, by its order dated

24.04.2018, stated that the said objection would be considered at the stage of judgment. However, a perusal of the order dated 26.06.2018 shows that no finding whatsoever was recorded on this objection. The Appellate Court, too, despite being obliged to examine all issues arising from the pleadings and material on record, did not address this jurisdictional question. The failure of both Courts below to return a Writ Petition No. 1387 of 2025, Smt. Kalavati (deceased) through LRs and others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another Ashish Naithani J. 9 finding on an objection going to the very maintainability of the proceedings renders their judgments unsustainable.

29. The second significant infirmity arises from the manner in which the Appellate Court dealt with the affidavits filed by the Respondents during the pendency of the appeal. By such affidavits, the Respondents sought to introduce an additional ground of bona fide requirement, namely the need of the sons of respondent No. 1. The Petitioners immediately objected by filing Application No. 86A, contending that no additional need could be considered without amendment of pleadings.

30. The Appellate Court, by order dated 07.01.2020, recorded that this objection would be considered at the stage of final judgment. Nevertheless, in the judgment dated 30.04.2025, the Appellate Court proceeded to rely upon the subsequent need projected in the affidavits and made it a ground for affirming the order of release. This approach was legally flawed. The requirement which is not pleaded in the release Application cannot be introduced indirectly through affidavits, nor can it form the foundation of a finding against the tenant. Pleadings are meant to define the case, and in the absence of an amendment, no new ground could have been taken into account.

31. A further error is found in relation to Application No. 171-A filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. By this Application, the Respondents sought to bring on record original sale deeds and related documents. The Appellate Court, by order dated 06.01.2024, directed that the documents be kept on record and that their admissibility and Writ Petition No. 1387 of 2025, Smt. Kalavati (deceased) through LRs and others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another Ashish Naithani J. 10 relevance would be considered at the stage of final judgment. However, the judgment dated 30.04.2025 does not contain even a reference to such documents. This omission amounts to non-consideration of material placed on record pursuant to judicial order and reflects a failure to discharge the duty cast upon the appellate forum.

32. The aspect of comparative hardship also requires scrutiny. Under the proviso to Section 21(1)(a), the Prescribed Authority is bound to consider whether greater hardship would be caused to the tenant by allowing the Application than to the landlord by its rejection.

33. In Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan, (1979) 1 SCC 273, the Hon’ble Supreme Court underscored that the comparative hardship contemplated under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act is not an empty formality but a mandatory exercise. The Court observed that the Prescribed Authority is duty-bound to weigh the consequences to the tenant if eviction is ordered, against the consequences to the landlord if the application is rejected. Failure to conduct such a balancing, amounts to non-compliance with the statutory mandate.

34. The material on record indicates that the Petitioners are residing in a dilapidated mud structure and belong to a weaker economic class. In contrast, the Respondents have sufficient means and alternate accommodation available. The orders impugned do not contain any meaningful analysis of comparative hardship, nor do they balance the relative circumstances of the parties. The omission to discharge this statutory duty vitiates the findings on bona fide need. Writ Petition No. 1387 of 2025, Smt. Kalavati (deceased) through LRs and others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another Ashish Naithani J. 11

35. On an overall consideration, it emerges that both Courts below committed manifest errors in: a. venturing into the question of ownership in proceedings of a summary nature, b. failing to decide jurisdictional objection raised through Application No. 55A, c. relying upon an alleged subsequent need not pleaded in the release Application, and d. omitting to consider documents kept on record under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, besides failing to properly assess comparative hardship under the proviso to Section 21(1)(a).

36. These errors are not mere irregularities but go to the root of the matter. The impugned orders are, therefore, vitiated by jurisdictional infirmity, non-consideration of material issues, and reliance upon matters beyond pleadings. The same cannot be sustained in law. ORDER For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court finds that the judgments and orders impugned suffer from manifest errors of jurisdiction, non-consideration of material objections and documents, and reliance upon matters beyond the pleadings. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Dehradun, in Rent Control Appeal No. 13 of 2024, as Writ Petition No. 1387 of 2025, Smt. Kalavati (deceased) through LRs and others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another Ashish Naithani J. 12 well as the judgment and order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dehradun, in P.A. Case No. 8 of 2008, are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH 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 (Ashish Naithani J.) 18.09.2025 Writ Petition No. 1387 of 2025, Smt. Kalavati (deceased) through LRs and others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another Ashish Naithani J. 13