ASHOK SRIVSTAVA Vs. SRI CHANDRA NARAIN MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner tenant and Sri Prakhar Tandon learned counsel for the respondent landlord.

(2.) Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant are that firstly U.P. Act No. 13 of the 1972 was not applicable at all and this question has not been decided by the court below. Secondly, Section 12 of the Act presupposes tenancy. Since the petitioner-tenant was not the tenant according to own case of the respondent-landlord and as such the impugned order could not have been passed. Thirdly, the petitioner-tenant was occupying the disputed property from 18 years and as such no application could have been entertained in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansaram v. S.P. Pathak and others AIR 1983 SC 1239. Thus the application was barred by limitation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord supports the impugned judgment and submits that the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant are self contradictory inasmuch as on one hand it has been argued that the Act is not applicable and on the other hand the remaining submission have been made on the assumption that the Act is applicable. He submits that neither there was any pleading nor any argument was raised by the petitioner-tenant at any stage of the proceedings that the Act is not applicable. He submits that the other submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant is concluded by the law laid down by this Court in the Case of Babloo v. Munna Lal Verma and another 2008(1) AWC 223 (para 19) in which it has been held that where no limitation is provided under the Act, it will not extinguish the rights of the landlord to take action which is taken upon various factors and his need cannot be obstructed on the plea that it has not been raised within a reasonable time, as provisions of Limitation Act would not be applicable. He relied upon another decision in the case of Mohd. Sakib v. Rent Control & Eviction Officer/A.C.M.5th, and 4 others 2016 (2) ARC 287 wherein it has been held that Section 13 of the Act prohibits occupation of a building without an allotment order and therefore, there is no good ground for interference with the order dated 22.2.2016 for declaration of vacancy.