Abdul Alim Vs. Sheikh Jamal Uddin Ansari and others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5072 of 1993 ,
Petitioner: Abdul Alim
Respondent: Sheikh Jamal Uddin Ansari and others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5072 of 1993 ,
Judges: DR. A.S. ANAND & K. VENKATASWAMI , JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 27, 1997
Head Note:
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION
U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting , Rent and Eviction ) Act , 1972
Section 21(1)(9)- Application for release – Maintainability – Undivided half share in rented shop – Purchased by tenant – Application for release of tenanted shop – No partition – Change of status of tenant to that of co-owner . Held that application for release was not maintainable .
U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting , Rent and Eviction ) Act , 1972
Section 21(1)(9)- Application for release – Maintainability – Undivided half share in rented shop – Purchased by tenant – Application for release of tenanted shop – No partition – Change of status of tenant to that of co-owner . Held that application for release was not maintainable .
Held:
The release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was not maintainable because the appellant-tenant had , in the meanwhile , acquired co-ownership rights in the demised shop . The change of status of the tenant to that of being an equal co-owner of the unpartitioned property , would , therefore , lead to an irresistible conclusion that the release application was not maintainable . It is not disputed that there has been no partition of the suit premises till date . The High Court was , under the circumstances , not justified in upsetting the findings of the trial court and the appellate court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction . ( Para 4 )
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1 . This appeal by special leave in directed against the order of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Peti-tion No. 12434 of 1990 , decided on 4-9-1992 .
2 . The dispute in the instant appeal pertains to a shop situate in Mohalla Bazar Bagh , Bahadurganj , Known as Bazarganj , Morada-bad . Initially , the shop in question was owned by Respondent 1 and his real brother – Sheikh Burhan Uddin . Vide a registered sale deed executed on 12-4-1988 , Sheikh Burhan Uddin sold his share in the shop to the appellant , who , thus , became a co-owner of the premises in question to the extent of half share .Respond-ent 1 continued to be the co-owner to the extent of the other half share . Respondent 1 filed an application for release of the shop under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regula-tion of Letting Rent and Eviction ) Act , 1972 ( hereinafter ” the Act ” ) before the prescribed authority in 1987 . The application was dismissed on 29-3-1989 by the prescribed authority principal-ly on the ground that since the appellant had become a co-owner of the premises , the application for release was not maintain-able . Appeal filed by Respondent 1 in the Court a Additional District Judge , Moradabad failed on 24-1-1990 . Respondent 1 , thereafter , filed civil miscellaneous writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad . Though the High Court confirmed the findings of fact recorded by the courts below , it held that the application for release was maintainable , as the sale deed exe-cuted in favour of the appellant on 12-4-1988 could not change his status of being a tenant of the premises . Hence this appeal by special leave .
3 . We have heard learned counsel for the parties .
4 . Both the trial court and the appellate court were fully justified in holding that the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was not maintainable because the appellant-tenant had , in the meanwhile , acquired co-ownership rights in the demised shop . The change of status of the tenant to that of being an equal co-owner of the unpartitioned property , would , there-fore , lead to an irresistible conclusion that the release appli-cation was not maintainable . It is not disputed that there has been no partition of the suit premises till date . The High Court was , under the circumstances , not justified in upsetting the findings of the trial court and the appellate court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction .
5. Thus , for what we have stated above , this appeal succeeds and is allowed . The order of the High Court dated 4-91992 is set aside and that of the trial court and the appellate court re-stored . There shall , however , be no order as to costs .
1 . This appeal by special leave in directed against the order of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Peti-tion No. 12434 of 1990 , decided on 4-9-1992 .
2 . The dispute in the instant appeal pertains to a shop situate in Mohalla Bazar Bagh , Bahadurganj , Known as Bazarganj , Morada-bad . Initially , the shop in question was owned by Respondent 1 and his real brother – Sheikh Burhan Uddin . Vide a registered sale deed executed on 12-4-1988 , Sheikh Burhan Uddin sold his share in the shop to the appellant , who , thus , became a co-owner of the premises in question to the extent of half share .Respond-ent 1 continued to be the co-owner to the extent of the other half share . Respondent 1 filed an application for release of the shop under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regula-tion of Letting Rent and Eviction ) Act , 1972 ( hereinafter ” the Act ” ) before the prescribed authority in 1987 . The application was dismissed on 29-3-1989 by the prescribed authority principal-ly on the ground that since the appellant had become a co-owner of the premises , the application for release was not maintain-able . Appeal filed by Respondent 1 in the Court a Additional District Judge , Moradabad failed on 24-1-1990 . Respondent 1 , thereafter , filed civil miscellaneous writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad . Though the High Court confirmed the findings of fact recorded by the courts below , it held that the application for release was maintainable , as the sale deed exe-cuted in favour of the appellant on 12-4-1988 could not change his status of being a tenant of the premises . Hence this appeal by special leave .
3 . We have heard learned counsel for the parties .
4 . Both the trial court and the appellate court were fully justified in holding that the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was not maintainable because the appellant-tenant had , in the meanwhile , acquired co-ownership rights in the demised shop . The change of status of the tenant to that of being an equal co-owner of the unpartitioned property , would , there-fore , lead to an irresistible conclusion that the release appli-cation was not maintainable . It is not disputed that there has been no partition of the suit premises till date . The High Court was , under the circumstances , not justified in upsetting the findings of the trial court and the appellate court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction .
5. Thus , for what we have stated above , this appeal succeeds and is allowed . The order of the High Court dated 4-91992 is set aside and that of the trial court and the appellate court re-stored . There shall , however , be no order as to costs .
