Uttarakhand High Court
U.P. Provincial Paliwal Brahmin … vs Sanjay Agarwal on 20 August, 2025
2025:UHC:7331
Reserved on:08.08.2025
Delivered on:20.08.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1226 of 2018
U.P. Provincial Paliwal Brahmin Association ......Petitioner
Vs.
Sanjay Agarwal .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned Counsel, for the Respondent. .
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the Petitioner, U.P. Provincial Paliwal Brahmin
Association, Haridwar, through its Secretary, challenging the judgment
and order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Third Additional
District Judge, Haridwar in SCC Revision No. 09 of 2017, whereby the
revision preferred by the Respondent was allowed. The judgment and
decree dated 23.08.2017, passed in SCC Suit No. 28 of 1997, was set
aside.
2. The Petitioner is a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. According to the Petitioner, it is engaged in
public religious and charitable activities, including running
"Brahmachari Ramkrishan Sanskrit College" and "Paliwal
Dharamshala" at Upper Road, Haridwar. The property in question is a
1
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1226 of 2018, U.P. Provincial Paliwal Brahmin Association Vs Sanjay Agarwal.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7331
west-facing garage situated in the said Dharamshala premises, which
was let out to one late Brij Bhushan Lal on a monthly rent of ₹18.75.
3. After the death of Brij Bhushan Lal, his wife and the present
Respondent, claiming to be his adopted son, came into possession as
legal heirs. The Petitioner claims that by virtue of the 1995 amendment
to the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as Act 13 of 1972) properties of
public charitable and religious institutions were exempted from the
operation of the Act, and issued a notice dated 11.02.1997 under
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy.
4. As the premises was not vacated, the Petitioner instituted SCC
Suit No. 28 of 1997 before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Haridwar,
seeking eviction and mesne profits. The Respondent filed a written
statement disputing the nature of the property, denying that it formed
part of a Dharamshala, asserting that it was being used as a godown,
and contending that the tenancy had not been validly terminated. The
Respondent also denied the applicability of the exemption under Act
No. 13 of 1972.
5. The trial court, by judgment and order dated 11.05.2004,
dismissed the suit holding that the Petitioner had not proved the
property to be exempt from the Act as belonging to a public charitable
or religious institution. The Petitioner's SCC Revision No. 4 of 2004
was allowed by the District Judge, Haridwar on 01.12.2006, setting
aside the trial court's judgment and decreeing the suit.
6. The Respondent filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 105 of 2007 before
this Court. By judgment dated 23.02.2017, this Court set aside both the
judgments dated 11.05.2004 and 01.12.2006 and remanded the matter
to the trial court for fresh consideration, granting liberty to both parties
to lead additional evidence.
2
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1226 of 2018, U.P. Provincial Paliwal Brahmin Association Vs Sanjay Agarwal.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7331
7. Upon remand, the trial court, by judgment and decree dated
23.08.2017, decreed the suit, directing the Respondent to vacate the
premises and to pay mesne profits at ₹1,875 per month from the date of
the suit till delivery of possession.
8. The Respondent preferred SCC Revision No. 09 of 2017 before
the learned Third Additional District Judge, Haridwar. By judgment
dated 31.03.2018, the revision was allowed, the trial court's judgment
dated 23.08.2017 was set aside, and the suit was dismissed on the
finding that the Petitioner had failed to establish that the property was
that of a public charitable or religious institution so as to attract
exemption under Act No. 13 of 1972.
9. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been instituted
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the learned
revisional court erred in law in holding that the property in dispute is
not that of a public charitable or religious institution. It was argued that
the Petitioner society runs "Paliwal Dharamshala" as well as
"Brahmachari Ramkrishan Sanskrit College" and is, therefore, covered
by the exemption under Section 2(bb) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
11. It was contended that the Petitioner produced sufficient
documentary evidence to demonstrate its charitable and religious
character, including the Rules and Regulations of the society containing
its objects, the licence issued by Nagar Nigam in favour of the
Dharamshala, and Government correspondence dated 01.04.1977 and
22.03.1977 showing that the Sanskrit College receives grant-in-aid.
12. Learned counsel submitted that the learned revisional court
misconstrued paper no. 176C, which was an intimation to the District
Education Officer about vacancies in the college. It was urged that the
document itself showed that the college was functioning and that
vacancies were to be filled by the Government, not the Petitioner, and
hence the adverse inference drawn was unsustainable.
3
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1226 of 2018, U.P. Provincial Paliwal Brahmin Association Vs Sanjay Agarwal.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7331
13. It was argued that the licence of the Dharamshala and the lease of
Pali Hotel were also misread. The existence of a lease for part of the
Dharamshala premises for a hotel was explained as a measure to raise
funds for upkeep and to provide facilities for the students of the
Sanskrit College. The absence of mention of beds in the Dharamshala's
licence was stated to be because it is a charitable facility, unlike a
commercial hotel.
14. Learned counsel submitted that the Respondent himself admitted,
in an application under Section 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 and in his
cross-examination, that a Dharamshala and a Sanskrit College were
being run in the premises. It was contended that such admissions were
binding and constituted the best evidence, which the revisional court
ignored.
15. Learned counsel submitted that the findings of the revisional
court are based on surmises and conjectures, are contrary to the
evidence on record, and suffer from material irregularity and
jurisdictional error, warranting interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
16. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner
has failed to discharge the burden of proving that it is a public
charitable or religious institution entitled to the benefit of the
exemption under the Act No. 13 of 1972.
17. It was contended that the property in question is not a
Dharamshala but is being used for running a commercial hotel under
the name "Pali Hotel". The licences issued by Nagar Nigam and the
lease deed (paper no. 178C) show that a hotel or lodging house is being
operated, and the Petitioner failed to establish that the income, if any,
from such operations is used for charitable purposes.
18. Learned counsel argued that merely producing the Rules and
Regulations of the society or stating its objects is insufficient to prove
4
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1226 of 2018, U.P. Provincial Paliwal Brahmin Association Vs Sanjay Agarwal.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7331
its actual functioning as a public charitable or religious institution.
Reliance was placed on the judgment dated 23.02.2017 in Writ Petition
(M/S) No. 105 of 2007 between the same parties, wherein this Court
had held that the actual work performed and the actual beneficiaries
must be established, and that mere nomenclature is not determinative.
19. It was urged that the Petitioner failed to prove that "Brahmachari
Ramkrishan Sanskrit College" is being run in the premises. No
documentary evidence was produced to establish that education is
imparted free of cost or that the college is functioning in the disputed
property.
20. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court, after remand,
decreed the suit merely on the basis of the Petitioner's assertions
without cogent evidence, whereas the revisional court, upon correct
appreciation of the record, found that the Petitioner did not fulfil the
statutory requirements for exemption from the Act No. 13 of 1972.
21. It was further contended that there is no perversity or illegality in
the revisional court's findings, and the present writ petition is devoid of
merit, having been filed to delay the proceedings and exert pressure on
the Respondent.
22. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
23. The central issue for determination in the present writ petition is
whether the Petitioner has established that the property in question
belongs to or is vested in a public charitable or public religious
institution so as to attract the exemption under Section 2(bb) of the U.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
24. The burden to establish such exemption rests squarely upon the
party claiming it. It is settled law that mere recitals in the Rules and
Regulations of a society or statements of its objects are not conclusive.
The actual nature of activities carried out, the manner of their
performance, and the category of beneficiaries must be proved by
5
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1226 of 2018, U.P. Provincial Paliwal Brahmin Association Vs Sanjay Agarwal.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7331
cogent evidence before the Court can return a finding of exemption. In
the present case, while the Petitioner has produced its Rules and
Regulations, licences from Nagar Nigam, and certain Government
correspondence dating back to 1977, these documents, by themselves,
do not establish that the property in dispute is presently and actually
being used for charitable or religious purposes. The documents relied
upon are either historical in nature or relate to other parts of the
Dharamshala premises, and not specifically to the tenanted portion.
25. The revisional court, on a detailed consideration of the material,
has recorded that the licence relied upon by the Petitioner is in respect
of "Pali Hotel" and that a lease deed (paper no. 178C) exists permitting
operation of a hotel/lodging house in the premises. The Petitioner has
not disputed the existence of the lease but has sought to explain it as a
source of revenue for the charitable activities of the society. However,
no documentary evidence has been produced to show the utilisation of
such income for charitable purposes.
26. The assertion that "Brahmachari Ramkrishan Sanskrit College" is
being run in the premises has also not been substantiated by
contemporary records. The only material cited is an application filed by
the Respondent in 1994 under Section 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 and
certain statements in cross-examination. The revisional court has
correctly observed that such admissions, even if made, must be read in
the context of present factual proof of charitable use, which is lacking
in the record before the trial court after remand.
27. This Court's earlier judgment dated 23.02.2017 in Writ Petition
(M/S) No. 105 of 2007, between the same parties, had clearly held that
the Petitioner was required to lead substantive evidence after remand to
prove that the institution is public charitable or religious in character,
and that actual charitable activities are being carried out. The
6
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1226 of 2018, U.P. Provincial Paliwal Brahmin Association Vs Sanjay Agarwal.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:7331
opportunity to lead additional evidence was granted, yet the Petitioner
failed to produce material meeting that standard.
28. The revisional court has dealt with each document relied upon by
the Petitioner, recorded reasons for discarding them in the context of
the statutory requirement, and found that the trial court's decree dated
23.08.2017 rested upon mere assertions without the necessary
evidentiary foundation. This Court finds no perversity, patent illegality,
or material irregularity in such findings.
29. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, this Court does not reappreciate evidence as in a
regular appeal, but only interferes where the findings are perverse or
jurisdictional error is demonstrated. The present case does not disclose
any such ground warranting interference.
ORDER
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in
the writ petition. The judgment and order dated 31.03.2018 passed by
the learned Third Additional District Judge, Haridwar in SCC Revision
No. 09 of 2017 does not suffer from any perversity, patent illegality, or
jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dated:20.08.2025
NR/
7
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1226 of 2018, U.P. Provincial Paliwal Brahmin Association Vs Sanjay Agarwal.
Ashish Naithani J.
[ad_1]
Source link