✦ High Court of India · 22 Sep 2025

Shivnath Prasad v. Sachin Gupta) under Section

Case Details High Court of India · 22 Sep 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

22 Sep 2025

Bench

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

Length

2,185 words

Cited in this judgment

2002 (8) SCC 31

Saurabh Srivastava : : Ajay Rajendra Court No. - 37 Reserved On:22.8.2025 Delivered On:22.9.2025 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to house no.24 / 47, Birhana Road, Kanpur Nagar. Respondent filed an application dated 21.12.2021 for declaring vacancy with respect to the tenanted accommodation. In the aforementioned application dated 21.12.2021 averment has been made regarding execution of Will deed dated 12.2.1981 executed by Pyare Lal Gupta in favour of Munni Devi (mother of the petitioner). Petitioner filed his reply dated 30.4.2022 to the application dated 21.12.2021 stating that tenancy under the Will-deed dated 12.2.1981 was not confined to the life of Munni Devi rather the same will be inherited by the petitioner. In reply, it is also mentioned that Pyare Lal Gupta (grandfather of the petitioner) and Rampyari Devi (grandmother of the petitioner) were not actual owner of the property. A sale-deed was also alleged to be executed on 25.11.1986 by Rampyari Devi in favour of the respondent / Shivnath Prasad Gupta. Petitioner has filed evidence in support of his contention. Rent Control and Eviction Officer / City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "RECO") vide order dated 19.10.2023 declared the vacancy with respect to the tenanted accommodation in question. Release application filed by respondent was subsequently allowed by RCEO on 3.8.2024. Against the orders dated 19.10.2023 & 3.8.2024 passed by RECO, petitioner filed a revision under Section 18 of U.P. Urban (Regulation of Letting, Rent Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, which was registered as Revision No.145 of 2024. The aforementioned 2 WRIA No. 8576 of 2025 revision was heard by the Additional District Judge, Court no.7, Kanpur Nagar and the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.5.2025. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following relief: "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 19.10.2023 and 3.8.2024 passed by the Court of Rent Control and Eviction Officer (RCEO)/ Additional City Magistrate (III), Kanpur Nagar in Case No.991 of 2023 (D2022303410000991) (Shivnath Prasad Vs. Sachin Gupta) under Section 12 read with 15 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and judgement dated 17.5.2025 passed in rent revision no.145 of 2024 (Sachin Gupta vs. Shivnath Gupta) by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court no.7, Kanpur Nagar (Annexure no.1, 2 & 3 to the writ petition)."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner specifically pleaded and argued before the authority that Pyare Lal Gupta (grandfather of the petitioner) was sole owner / landlord of the premises in question. He further submitted that Rampyari Devi (grandmother of the petitioner) was not owner of the premises, as such, she was not competent to execute the Will- deed. He further submitted that Rampyari Devi cannot become owner of the premises in view of the Will deed dated 12.2.1981 by which respondent / shivnath prasad gupta was declared beneficiary of the Will-deed. He further submitted that in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the subsequent Will- deed dated 14.2.1984 & 25.11.1986 cannot be relied upon. He further submitted that the petitioner is legal heir and successor of Pyare Lal Gupta thus the entire proceedings for declaring the vacancy & release are vitiated. He further submitted that RCEO has failed to discharge its jurisdiction as provided under Section 18 (1) (c) of the Act of 13 of 1972, as such, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that the impugned order should be set aside and application for release as well as for declaring the vacancy in respect to the premises in dispute should be rejected. He placed reliance upon the following judgements of Apex Court as well as this Court in support of his argument: i. 2018 (2) ARC 40, Suresh Kumar Kohli vs. Rakesh Jain and Another. ii. 2015 (1) ARC 148, Rajesh Kumar and Another vs. Dushyant Kumar and Another.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is son of Pyare Lal Gupta & Ram Pyari Devi. He further submitted that in view of the execution of Will-deed dated 12.2.1981 by Pyare Lal Gupta in favour of respondent, the respondent is landlord of the house in dispute. He further submitted that Ram Pyari Devi executed a registered Will- deed dated 25.11.1986 in favour of respondent and both the Will- 3 WRIA No. 8576 of 2025 deed have not been cancelled by any Court of law, as such, the same cannot be challenged in the rent control proceeding. He further submitted that according to the clause 5 of the Will-deed dated 12.2.1981, Pyare Lal Gupta and Ram Pyari Devi have let out the house in dispute to their married daughter, Munni Devi wife of Hari Prakash as a tenant of Rs.40/- per month till life of Munni Devi. He further submitted that application for declaring the vacancy has been allowed in proper manner. He further submitted that release application has also been allowed in proper manner. He further submitted that the petitioner is illegal occupant as there is no allotment order in favour of the petitioner in respect to the premises in dispute. He further submitted that in view of the finding of fact recorded by the RCEO and the revisional Court, there is no scope for interference by this Court. He further submitted that house in dispute is required for the family of respondent. He further submitted that respondent is ailing person and his wife is aged about 71 years, as such, there is no illegality in the order of vacancy and release passed by the RCEO. He further submitted that order of vacancy dated 19.10.2023 was not challenged in the writ petition at the relevant point of time and the same has attained finality. He further submitted that Additional District Judge has rightly dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is depositing rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 wherein the petitioner has admitted that respondent is landlord. He further submitted that petitioner has also filed injunction suit bearing no.1444 of 2020, which is still pending. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed another suit no.854 of 2024 for cancellation of registered Will-deed which is pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.7, Kanpur Nagar. He further submitted that issue relating vacancy is in between the landlord and RCEO and the same cannot be challenged by the unauthorized occupant in view of the ratio of law laid down by this Court in the case reported in 2017 (2) ARC 591, Mohd. Bashir vs. State of U.P. and 2 others. He further placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court reported in 2016 (3) ARC 418, Zila Prabandhak U.P. Anusuchit Jati Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam vs. Onkaar Prasad Bhardwaj and others in order to demonstrate that question relating to ownership cannot be raised or decided in rent control proceeding. He placed reliance upon the judgement reported in 2013 (4) AWC 3343, Smt. Munni Devi vs. Raghubir Saran (D) through L.Rs. and others in order to demonstrate that RCEO cannot review the order of vacancy. He further placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court reported in 2002 (8) SCC 31, Nutan Kumar and Others in order to demonstrate that RCEO can declare the vacancy and release if any agreement or letting of the premises is made without allotment. He finally submitted that the instant writ petition should be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that RCEO declared the 4 WRIA No. 8576 of 2025 vacancy of the premises in dispute and subsequently release order has been passed by the RCEO in respect to the premises in dispute. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision under Section 18 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 17.5.2025.

7. It is material to mention that RCEO has passed the order for declaring the vacancy in respect to the premises in dispute and release order was accordingly passed in respect to the premises in dispute.

8. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of title that petitioner be treated as owner/ landlord of the premises in question cannot be entertained and allowed by the Court in the rent control proceeding.

9. It is also material to mention that petitioner has already filed two civil suits one for injunction and another for cancellation of registered Will-deed which are pending before the civil Court, as such, unless civil suit for cancellation of Will-deed is decreed or any declaration is granted in favour of the petitioner that they will be treated as owner of the property, the impugned orders cannot be set aside at the instance of the petitioner.

10. The revisional Court has considered the entire aspect of the matter and exercised the jurisdiction under Section 18 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. Relevant paragraphs of the order dated 17.5.2005 are as under: "माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद ्षारा उपरो्व विणत िविध ्िवस्थाओं में िदए गए िदशा िनदरॏशों को दृि्िगत रखते हुए सम्यक पिरशीलन के आधार पर इस िनष्कषर् पर पंहुचा जाता है िक इस ्ऺकरण में पािरत िर्वता आदेश तथा िनमु र्ि्व आदेश को पुनरी्षणकतार् ्षारा एक साथ चुनौती देते हुए किथत िकराया पुनरी्षण योिजत िकया गया है। उभयप्ष के िव्षान अिधव्वा ्षारा बहस के दौरान ्ऺस्तुत िकए गए तथ्यो तथा ्ऺस्तुत की गई िविध ्िवस्थाओं व ्ऺश्नगत िर्वता आदेश व िनमु र्ि्व आदेश के अवलोकन से स्प्ि है िक इस ्ऺकरण में पुनरी्षण कतार् को अवैध अध्यासी ठहराते हुए िर्वता आदेश पािरत िकया गया है, िर्वता आदेश में िकसी ्ऺकार की र्ि्व अिधकारी/अपर िविधक ्ऴुिट व िविधक अिनयिमतता एवं िव्षान िकराया िनयन््ऴण एवं िनमु नगर मिजस््िेट, तृतीय, कानपुर नगर ्षारा अपने ्षे्ऴािधकार का दुरुपयोग कािरत िकया जाना नहीं पाया जाता है, तदानुसार िर्वता आदेश में हस्त्षेप करने का कोई आधार नहीं है।

14. पुनरी्षणकतार् के िव्षान अिधव्वा ्षारा इस आशय का कथन िकया गया िव ्ऺितप्षी स्वच्छ हाथों से न्यायालय के सम्ष नहीं आए है और स्वच्छ हाथों से न्यायालय के सम्ष न आने के कारण ्ऺितप्षी िकसी अनुतोष को ्ऺाप्त करने के भी अिधकारी नहीं है। इस सम्बन्ध में पुनरी्षण कतार् की ओर से माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद की िविध ्िवस्था- वक्क तिकयान इनायत अली शाह उफर् तकीयाकालम व अन्य बनाम िदलीप िसह व अन्य, 2009 (1) ए.एल.आर. 399 लखनऊ खण्डपीठ ्षारा अवधािरत िकया गया िक- "िकसी प्षकार को न्यायालय के सम्ष स्वच्छ हृदय व स्वच्छ मनोदशा के अनुतोष ्ऺाप्त करने के िलए न्यायालय के सम्ष आना चािहए और यिद कोई ्िि्व न्यायालय के सम्ष स्वच्छ हृदय व स्वच्छ मनोदशा के साथ नहीं आता है तो ऐसे ्िि्व को अनुतोष ्ऺदान नहीं करना चािहए।" 5 WRIA No. 8576 of 2025 माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाबाद की उपरो्व विणत िविध ्िवस्था को दृि्िगत रखते हुए प्ऴावली के पिरशीलन के दौरान पाया गया िक प्ऴावली पर ऐसा कोई तथ्य सं्ञान में नहीं आया, िजससे यह ्ऺलि्षत हो िक ्ऺितप्षी स्वच्छ हाथों व स्वच्छ मनोदशा से न्यायालय के सम्ष नहीं आया है।

15. उपरो्व सम्ष पिरशीलन के आधार पर इस िनष्कषर् पर पहुँचा जाता है िक िदवानी िकराया र्ि्व अिधकारी/अपर नगर मिजस््िेट, तृतीय, कानपुर नगर ्षारा वाद संख्या िनयन््ऴण एवं िनमु 991/2023. िशवनाथ ्ऺसाद गुप्ता बनाम सिचन में पािरत िकये गये िर्वता आदेश िदनांक

19.10.2023 व िनमर्ि्व आदेश िदनांक 03.08.2024 में िकसी ्ऺकार की िविधक ्ऴुिट, अिनिमयतता व ्षे्ऴािधकार का दुरूपयोग कािरत िकया जाना नहीं पाया जाता है, तदानुसार िकराया पुनरी्षण 145/2024 िनरस्त िकए जाने योग्य है। आदेश िकराया पुनरी्षण वाद संख्या 145/2024 िनरस्त िकया जाता है। कायार्लय िलिपक को िदशा-िनदरॏिशत िकया जाता है िक यथोिचत कायर्वाही पूणर् करने के प्ाात अिवलम्ब तलबशुदा प्ऴावली इस आदेश की ्ऺित के साथ िव्षान िकराया िनयन््ऴण एवं िनमु र्ि्व अिधकारी / अपर नगर मिजस््िेट, तृतीय, कानपुर नगर को ्ऺेिषत करना सुिनि्ात करे इस ्ऺकरण में यहाँ यह स्प्ि िकया जाता है िक पुनरी्षण कतार् ्षारा इस ्ऺकरण में ्ऺश्नगत सम्पि्त के सम्बन्ध में अपने उ्तरािधकािरता हेतु िव्षान िसिवल न्यायालय, कानपुर नगर में वाद योिजत िकया गया है, िसिवल वाद के गुण-दोष के िनस्तारण के समय इस पुनरी्षण के दौरान िदया गया कोई भी िनष्कषर् िव्षान िसिवल न्यायालय पर बाध्यकारी नहीं होगा। िदनांक-17.05.2025 (आजाद िसह) अपर िजला जज, क्ष संख्या-07, कानपुर नगर।"

11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned judgments/ orders.

12. The instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed accordingly. September 22, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saurabh Srivastava : : Ajay Rajendra Court No. - 37 Reserved On:22.8.2025 Delivered On:22.9.2025 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned judgments/ orders.

12. The instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed accordingly. September 22, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments