The Allahabad High Court, in the matter of recovery of dues of rent of a demised shop, held that the petitioner (tenant) cannot escape his liability to pay the rent as demanded by the respondent authority.
The court noted that Nagar Palika could not recover such rent as arrears of land revenue by applying the provisions of the Act, 1972, or sections 279 and 280 of the Uttar Pradesh Jamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. It can be recovered by a suit but is subject to the bar of limitation.
The said order has been passed by the division bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla on a writ petition filed by Rayees Ahmad, who has challenged the recovery certificate dated 14th September 2019 as issued by the tehsildar of the Rampur Tehsil for recovery of a sum of rupees 1,10,000/- with interest and recovery charges.
According to the facts of the case, there was a shop situated on the premises of the Nagar Palika Parishad, and the owner of the shop was the Nagar Palika. The shop had been given on rent to the petitioner in the year 1998 for a period of fifteen years.
During the relevant period, the possession was not given to the petitioner until the year 2006. But in a meeting which was held on 30.12.2006, it was decided that the petitioner would pay the rent from November 2006.
Not only this, but it was also decided by the Nagar Palika in the aforesaid meeting that by the 5th day of each succeeding month, the petitioner shall deposit the rent.
Subsequently, for the stipulated terms and conditions, the petitioner executed an agreement with the respondent authority.
In compliance with an agreement, the petitioner started depositing rent with the Executive Officer, a representative authority of Nagar Palika, regularly.
On 18.01.2008, the Executive Officer issued a notice to the petitioner for the recovery of the rent before the month of November 2006. The petitioner contacted the concerned officer and requested him not to demand rent for that period when he was not in the possession of the shop.
Read also: Insurance Company Cannot Use Contractual Terms To Deny Welfare Compensation: Allahabad High Court
The respondent authority suddenly issued an impugned citation on 14.09.2009 for Rs 1,07,800, which is challenged in the present writ petition.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the action of the respondent under the directions of the District Magistrate, Rampur, was unfair and illegal.
On the other hand, the respondent authority submitted that the citation was a consequential step and the demand note was not challenged by the petitioner. The question of maintainability of the petition was also raised by the respondent.
Further in the counter-affidavit, the Nagar Palika stated that the petitioner was given possession of the shop in the month of November, 2006, and therefore, the Nagar Palika decided not to recover rent before November, 2006, but on the directions given by the District Magistrate, Rampur, on 18.01.2008, a demand note was issued and sent to the Tahsildar to recover rent from July, 1999, to November, 2006, from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.
The principal question before the court was “whether arrears of rent due to the Nagar Palika can be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916″.
After hearing both the parties, the court referred the section 173A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, and ruled that,
“We confine our holding in this case to the point that assuming that the rent in question was due to the Nagar Palika from the petitioner, it cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, in view of the clear provision under Section 173-A of the Act of 1916.”
The counsel for the Nagar Palika specifically pleaded that the recovery citation was properly issued against the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, because the petitioner was a party to the agreement relating to the advance and he was liable to pay the amount as arrears of land revenue.
On this, the bench discussed section 3 of the aforesaid Act 1972 and clarified that
“The Nagar Palika is, by no means, the State Government or the Corporation, so as to attract clause (d) of sub-section 3(1) of the Act of 1972. The petitioner has not taken any loan, advance or credit either from the State Government or the Corporation, or a loan from a banking company or a Government company, under a State-sponsored scheme. He is not party to agreement relating to a guarantee given by the State Government or the Corporation in respect of the loan raised by an industrial concern.”
The Court was of the view that the dues were contractual in nature and beyond the contemplation of public money recoverable under the Act of 1972.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with a direction to the Nagar Palika Parishad to recover its dues by any other mode as permissible in law.
Case: Rayeesh Ahmad vs State of U.P. and others
Case No: WRIT C No. – 61926 of 2009
Date of Order: 29.07.2026
Status: Allowed
