AZEEM KHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the proceeding under Sec. 21 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021") has been initiated by respondent No. 3 stating that petitioner has sold his House No. C498, Block-C Nand Gram (Nand Nikunj), Ghaziabad on 10/8/2021 to respondent No. 3 and petitioner has taken the same House No. C-498 on rent on 12/8/2021 at the rate of 5,000/- per month. In the aforementioned proceeding written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner denying the allegations stating that petitioner has never sold his either of properties to respondent No. 3/ Mohd. Sabir nor he taken his own house at rent. Rent authority / Additional District Magistrate (City), Ghaziabad has allowed the application filed for eviction under Sec. 21 (1) of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 vide order dtd. 14/10/2024. Respondent No. 3 filed execution case as provided under Sec. 36 of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021, which has been registered as Case No. D202411280002912 before rent authority / Additional District Magistrate (City), Ghaziabad. In the aforementioned execution case, an objection under Sec. 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioner on 27/1/2025. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no relation- ship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondent No. 3, as such, proceeding under Sec. 21 (1) of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 initiated by respon- dent No. 3 cannot be entertained and allowed by the rent authority. He further submitted that objection under Sec. 47 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner before the execution Court has not been properly taken into consideration. He further submitted that in view of Sec. 2 (b) of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021, respondent No. 3 cannot be treated as landlord, as such, the proceeding for eviction which has been allowed by the rent authority is wholly illegal. He further submitted that the rent authority has failed to consider the fact that neither the sale-deed has been executed nor any rent agreement is in existence, as such, entire proceeding initiated under Sec. 21 (1) of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 against the petitioner is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that there is clear violation of the mandatory provision as contained under Sec. 21 (2) (a) of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021, as such, impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that disputed house has been purchased by the father of the petitioner from first allottee and same has come in the share of petitioner, as such, the proceeding for eviction cannot be initiated against the petitioner. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Amit Gupta v. Gulab Chandra Kanodia, 2022 (150) ALR 296. in support of his argument.