Affidavit Given Before Any Court Is Deemed To Be Conclusive Evidence In Subsequent Proceeding If Related To That Controversy: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has in a case under the UP Urban Buildings Act held that an affidavit given before any Court is to be read as conclusive evidence in subsequent proceedings before any Court if related to that controversy.
The Court further held that once an admission is made before any court of law in a written statement or affidavit, it should be treated as valid evidence. The case involved a release application filed, which resulted in a vacancy order and a subsequent release order. The respondent-defendant then filed Rent Revision, which was allowed.
A Bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari held that “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.”
Advocate Nikhil Kumar appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Ashish Kumar appeared for the Respondents.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order was flawed on two grounds. Firstly, it was allowed without reversing the finding of the Rent Control & Regulatory Officer. Secondly, the vacancy and release orders were based on the petitioner's ownership and residence, which were admitted in a separate lawsuit, and this finding was not reversed in the impugned order. The petitioner's counsel also argued that remand orders should not be routinely issued without exceptional circumstances.
The respondents' counsel opposed the petitioner's arguments by referring to Section 12(3) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, which stated that a vacancy can only be declared if alternative accommodation is vacant. In this case, there is a dispute between the defendant and his sister regarding the alternative accommodation.
The Court considered the arguments from both sides and examined relevant provisions of law and past judgments. It was observed that the defendant admitted in a separate lawsuit that they were residing as the sole owner of the property in question.
The Court focused on the applicability of Section 12(3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which deals with the deemed vacancy when a tenant or their family acquires permanent accommodation.
The Court relied on and reproduced what was held in Dr. Dinesh Chandra Vs. Krishna Kumar Goel in Civil Revision No. 214 of 2013, “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. ”
The Court emphasized that once an admission is made in a written statement or affidavit, it should be treated as valid evidence, and the deemed vacancy has to be acknowledged. It was noted that the impugned order failed to provide specific reasons for not accepting the admission made in the previous lawsuit.
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Prema Devi v. Devi Deen & Ors., [2023:AHC:175067]
Click here to read/download the Order
