LI Network
Published on: 11 September 2023 at 11:25 IST
In a recent ruling concerning a tenancy dispute governed by the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent, and Eviction) Act, 1972, the Allahabad High Court emphasized the principle that individuals cannot take a contradictory stance in subsequent proceedings from what they have previously affirmed in an affidavit.
Justice Neeraj Tiwari, citing relevant Supreme Court precedents, stated, “In light of Section 12(3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as well as law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, I am of the firm view that any affidavit given before any Court of law be read as conclusive evidence in subsequent proceeding before any Court of law, if related to that controversy.”
The case revolved around a release application that led to a vacancy order. Subsequently, a release order was also issued. The respondent-defendant had filed a Rent Revision against these orders, which the District Court granted.
The petitioner argued that the Rent Revision order was legally flawed as it disregarded the respondent-defendant’s sworn statement in the original suit.
In that statement, the respondent-defendant and his sister were embroiled in a property dispute, and he had affirmed under oath that he was the sole owner of the house in question.
The vacancy order had been issued based on this admission. However, the Additional District Judge (ADJ) passed the contested order without overturning this finding.
Conversely, the respondent-defendant’s counsel argued that Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, stipulates that the plaintiff must establish their case, and any affidavit or statement filed in another court cannot be used as evidence against the defendant.
The court referred to Section 12 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, which makes it clear that if tenants or their family members have taken up residence that is not temporary, it shall be deemed a vacancy.
The court drew upon judgments from the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court, including Basant Singh Vs. Janki Singh and others and Premlata @ Sunita Vs. Naseeb Bee and others, to emphasize the principle that individuals cannot adopt contradictory positions and argue against their previous statements.
In the end, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner and noted that the Revisional Court should have provided a specific justification for disregarding the respondent-defendant’s affidavit in the original suit.
Case Title: Smt. Prema Devi v. Devi Deen (Since Deceased) And 6 Others
