UP Urban Buildings Act | Affidavit Submitted To Court 'Conclusive Evidence' In Subsequent Proceedings Related To That Controversy: Allahabad HC

While deciding a tenancy dispute under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated the principle that no one can be permitted to take a different stand from what has been taken earlier on affidavit.

Relying on various Supreme Court judgments, a bench comprising of Justice Neeraj Tiwari said, “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.”

A release application was filed upon which vacancy order was passed. Subsequently, a release order was also passed. Against the said orders, respondent-defendant had filed Rent Revision which was allowed by District Court.

Petitioner contended that the order allowing the Rent Revision was bad in law as it disregarded the statement given by the respondent-defendants on oath in original suit, which is pending between respondent-defendant and his sister in which specific averment had been made on oath that he is living as sole owner in the said House. A vacancy order was passed relying upon the admission made by the respondent- defendant in the said suit, however, the ADJ without reversing this finding, passed the impugned order.

Per Contra, the Counsel for respondent-defendants argued that Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that plaintiff must establish his own case and any affidavit/ statement filed in another Court cannot be read as evidence against the defendant.

The Court observed that Section 12 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 is clear that in case, tenants or his family members, have taken a residence, not being temporary, deemed vacancy shall be treated.

The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Basant Singh Vs. Janki Singh and others, and Premlata @ Sunita Vs. Naseeb Bee and others to hold that no one can be permitted to approbate and reprobate and to take a stand contrary to that taken earlier.

The Court relied on Dr. Dinesh Chandra Vs. Krishna Kumar Goel, wherein the Allahabad High Court held,

“No one can be permitted to approbate and reprobate. It is doctrine of estoppel. When petitioner obtained benefit of the agreement in his writ petition against electricity authorities, he cannot be permitted to say that the agreement is not binding upon him or is not admissible in evidence. No reservation was made in the said writ petition regarding any clause of the tenancy agreement. No one can be permitted to say that he must be given benefit of an agreement to which he is signatory but if there is anything against him in the said agreement, then the same shall not be read against him due to the reason that the agreement is not on sufficiently stamped paper and is not registered even though required to be registered. Permitting such contradictory pleas to be raised will amount to granting premium on dishonesty.”

While allowing the petition, the Court observed that Revisional Court should have recorded specific findings for disregarding the affidavit of the respondet-defendant in the original suit.

Case Title: Smt. Prema Devi vs.Devi Deen (Since Deceased) And 6 Others

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 316

Counsel for Petitioner: Nikhil Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: Ashish Kumar

Click Here To Read/Download Order