Revenue court of civil court?

Quadir (Querist) 19 May 2020 This query is : Resolved
Greetings experts,

In a town of U.P. the then zamindar leased out a piece of land through an unregistered document in 1949, reserving Rs. 6 as an annual rent. No duration of lease mentioned in the deed, no 4 sides of property given, only khasra number is given. Right to raise construction was given in the deed, tenant raised pacca construction. Land is in limits town area limits (now nagar panchayat). Later tenant got his name mutated in revenue records and sold a large part of the property to someone, claiming himself as the owner of the property. Possession of sold part handed over to the purchaser.

Now, what is remedy for the landlord to get back the possession ?

1. As the land is in nagar panchayat limits, should it be treated as an urban property and landlord goes to civil court? or small cause court?
2. U.P. rent control act applies here?
3. Since property is in nagar panchayat limits so Z.A. act does apply, still should the landlord go to revenue court?
4. Should the landlord plead to get the sale deed cancelled?
5. What about court fees then if landlord wants to get the sale deed cancelled?

Thank you in anticipation.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

This discussion explores whether a landlord in Uttar Pradesh should pursue a land dispute in the Revenue Court or Civil Court. The case involves a tenant who, after leasing land via an unregistered document, mutated the records, constructed a building, and then sold a portion of the property. Experts debate the applicability of the UP Rent Control Act and the Zamindari Abolition Act, with a consensus leaning towards the Civil Court for remedies like eviction and potentially challenging the sale deed, considering court fees and the nature of the original lease.

Guest (Expert) 19 May 2020
If at all you are serious about the issues mentioned discuss in detail with the Civil Side Senior Advocate in the Concerned High Court --Allahabad and then proceed in the Concerned relevant Court.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 19 May 2020
1. Civil Court.

2. No. Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter, 'TPA') confers the right of redemption on the mortgagee. It lays down that after the principal money becomes due, the mortgagor can tender the money and require the mortgagee to deliver the possession of the property or the deed/documents to him.

3. No. Reply is in consoance with the point no. 2

4. Yes. Such sale is a criminal act also so a FIR can also be got lodged apart from civil remedy to get such sale-deed set aside.

5. Market value of the said property shall be the base to calculate the court fee. Better to obtain this information from the local revenue authorities.

Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 19 May 2020
You said:
1. As the land is in nagar panchayat limits, should it be treated as an urban property and landlord goes to civil court? or small cause court?
Reply:
Civil Court has the Jurisdiction.

You said:
2. U.P. rent control act applies here?
Reply:
Discuss with local lawyer, show him all related documents.

Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 19 May 2020
You said:
3. Since property is in nagar panchayat limits so Z.A. act does apply, still should the landlord go to revenue court?
Reply:
Civil Court should be moved.

You said:
4. Should the landlord plead to get the sale deed cancelled?
Reply:
Yes, sale is illegal, may lodge FIR.

Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 19 May 2020
You said:
5. What about court fees then if landlord wants to get the sale deed cancelled?
Reply:
Court fee has to be paid, however, court fee depend on how, on what basis, for what reliefs the case is filed.

P. Venu (Expert) 19 May 2020
Facts posted suggest the transaction to be an assignment than a lease in terms of Transfer of Property Act . With the abolition of Zamindari and such estates alienated tenures, the assignee who had duly appropriated the said lands for his personal use, has been conferred with the right, title and interest in such properties. As such, to my knowledge, no action, civil or criminal, lies on the facts posted.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 19 May 2020
Expert P. Venu!

How and why have you not considered the document of lease though unregistered, mentioned in the query while giving your answer/advice? Your answer requires some more clarification strictly in the light of the facts submitted by the author so as to increase my knowledge.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 19 May 2020
@ Shri RK Makkad Sir,
Kindly note that the author had not mentioned in his query anything about the 'mortgage' of the property, hence your reference to section 60 of TPA and the opinion rendered by you therein may not appropriate to this situation.
You may note that the author has very clearly mentioned that the owner leased out the property by an unregistered deed.
Hence there is no question of the property being mortgaged to the tenant.
The tenant is a tenant till the end and cannot become owner especially when there is condition in the lease agreement to pay an amount towards rent at a fixed rate every month.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 19 May 2020
@ Shri P Venu Sir,
Please note that the author has clearly mentioned that it was an unregistered lease agreement and not deed of assignment, neither the contents prompt to conclude that it was an assignment.
It clearly establishes landlord and tenant relationship.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 19 May 2020
@ Author:
In my opinion:
1. Whether urban property or otherwise, the landlord is entitled to approach civil court based on the pecuniary jurisdiction for obtaining desired reliefs.
2. Since the landlord has an evidence for the lease agreement, the case can be filed for eviction under rent control act also.
3. If this property comes under the provisions of Zamindari Abolition act, then the provisions of the said act may be invoked in the civil court itself.
4. Since the landlord is not a party to the illegal sale deed executed by the tenant, he need not seek the relief of cancellation of the said sale deed because it is not binding on the landlord.
5. Seeking to set side the sale deed may not be required, however if the landlord insists on it then he may have to pay the requisite court fee as applicable.

Quadir (Querist) 19 May 2020
Thank you experts for your responses.

To my small knowledge of law, Z.A. act did not apply to town area or municipal properties. Since ZA did not apply and nothing vested in the state under this act, so zamindar will remain the owner of all properties (agriculture or otherwise) within town area limits. (all means all which he was owner before). So, ejectment of tenant (or the new purchaser) cannot be done under any provision of ZA act (or U.P. tenancy act). now remedy for the landlord lies either in T.P act or U.P. rent control act. Please tell me if i am right.

Now if landlord goes to the civil court, does he have to get sale deed cancelled and pay ad valorem court fees? Even if he is not the party to the deed. Document is not binding upon him, it is void an initio, still it needs to be cancelled?

The sale deed between the tenant and purchaser is void or voidable document?
As the very first step, does the landlord have to serve a notice to the tenant (and purchaser) u/s 106 terminating the tenancy?

P. Venu (Expert) 20 May 2020
Is the annual rent, as specified, is still being paid to the erstwhile Zamindar or his successors? If not, since when the payment has been discontinued? Has the property been assessed to land revenue? How is the property recorded in the revenue/municipal records? Who is holding the land as per those records?

Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 20 May 2020
Landlord has the option to file criminal case against the tenant and the purchaser of the land.

This step may not give relief for cancellation of the sale deed.

For cancellation of said sale deed civil court has to be approached.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries