2026:UHC:2923 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1099 of 2014 21ST April, 2026 Smt. Usha Gupta & another --Petitioners Versus Smt. Nutan Maheswari & another --Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- S. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, through video conferencing. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT This is landlords’ petition, challenging judgment dated 23.12.2010, passed by Prescribed Authority, in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Petitioners have also challenged the judgment and order dated 09.10.2013, passed by learned Additional District Judge, in Rent Control Appeal No. 01 of 2011. 2. Petitioners are owner of House No. 11-271, situate at Kaladhungi Chauraha, Haldwani, District Nainital, including a shop in the ground floor of the said house. Petitioners filed an application seeking release of the shop, which according to them, was originally let out to one Mr. Uma Shankar Maheshwari. It was mentioned in the release application that original tenant Mr. Uma Shankar Maheshwari died some times 1 2026:UHC:2923 in the year 1983-84 leaving behind his widow (Shakuntla Devi) and daughter (Smt. Urmila Devi). It was further stated that widow and daughter of Uma Shankar Maheshwari also passed away and Mr. Dharmendra Maheshwari (opposite party) grandson of Uma Shankar Maheshwari (son of Smt. Urmila Devi) is now running the business. The shop in question was sought to be released on the ground of personal bonafide need. 3. The release application filed by petitioners was rejected by Prescribed Authority, vide judgment dated 23.12.2010. The issue of bonafide need and comparative hardship were decided in favour of respondents and against the petitioners. Petitioners filed appeal, which too was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Nainital, vide judgment dated 09.10.2013. The judgments, rendered by Prescribed Authority, as affirmed by Appellate Authority, are under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that appeal was dismissed on untenable grounds. It is contended that one of the ground for dismissing the appeal is that, in the release application, appellants did not make any averment that respondent was their tenant. Learned counsel submits that conjoint reading of para 1 to 4 of the release application belies that ground and reveals that Mr. Dharmendra Maheshwari (respondent) was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Maheshwari Cloth House as tenant, in the 2 2026:UHC:2923 shop, which was originally let out to his maternal Grandfather, late Uma Shankar Maheshwari. He further submits that learned Appellate Authority relied upon the judgment rendered in Original Suit No. 26 of 2026 for holding that respondent is not the tenant of the respondents. He submits that Mr. Dharmendra Maheshwari (respondent), in para 1 of his reply to release application, admitted that applicants are the owner and landlord of the shop in question, in which late Uma Shankar Maheshwari was a tenant during his lifetime. He thus contends that both the grounds taken by learned Appellate Authority for dismissing the appeal are unsustainable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Civil Suit No. 26 of 2006 was filed by Mr. Dharmendra Maheshwari seeking injunction, which was decided by holding that he was not a valid tenant of petitioners. 6. This Court finds substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. Combined reading of para 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 filed by petitioners reveals that the shop in question was originally let out to Mr. Uma Shankar Maheshwari and after his death, his widow and daughter became tenant in respect of the said shop and after death of Urmila Devi (daughter of late Uma Shankar Maheshwari), her son continued as tenant in the shop in question, for carrying business in the name and style of M/s 3 2026:UHC:2923 Maheshwari Cloth House. Thus, the first ground for dismissing the appeal cannot be sustained, as there is averment in the release application that Mr. Dharmendra Maheshwari is continuing as tenant in the house owned by petitioners, after death of his mother. Another reason assigned by Appellate Authority for dismissing the appeal is the judgment rendered in Civil Suit No. 26 of 2006 (Dharmendra Maheshwari v. Usha Gupta), in which it was held that Dharmendra Maheshwari is not a valid tenant of Usha Gupta. Learned Appellate Authority, however, appears to have overlooked the admission made by Dharmendra Maheshwari (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) in his reply to the release application, where he admits that applicants are the owner and landlord of the building in question, which was originally let out to late Uma Shankar Maheshwari. The averment made in para 1 to 4 of the release application were not denied by Dharmendra Maheshwari in his reply/written statement, thus, the only logical inference, which can be gathered from the pleadings, is that he admitted his status to be that of a tenant in respect of the shop in question. 7. Law is well settled that admission is the best piece of evidence against the persons making it. Admission, though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal and others, reported as AIR 1979 SC 861 held that evidentiary admissions are not 4 2026:UHC:2923 conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong, but they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them or his representative-in-interest and further that unless shown or explained to be wrong, they are an efficacious proof of the facts admitted”. In the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and others, reported as (2012) 8 SCC 148, Apex Court has held as under:- “20. Admission is the best piece of substantive evidence that an opposite party can rely upon, though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. Admission may in certain circumstances, operate as an estoppel. The question which is needed to be considered is what weight is to be attached to an admission and for that purpose it is necessary to find out as to whether it is clear, unambiguous and a relevant piece of evidence, and further it is proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. It would be appropriate that an opportunity is given to the person under cross-examination to tender his explanation and clear the point on the question of admission. 23. In view of the above, the law on the admissions can be summarised to the effect that admission made by a party though not conclusive, is a decisive factor in a case unless the other party successfully withdraws the same or proves it to be erroneous. Even if the admission is not conclusive it may operate as an estoppels….” 8. Since Dharmendra Maheshwari admitted his status to be that of a tenant, therefore, learned Appellate Authority erred in law, in relying upon the judgment rendered by civil court in an injunction suit filed by respondent, for holding that he is not tenant in respect of the shop in question. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment 5 2026:UHC:2923 rendered by Appellate Authority on 09.10.2013, in Rent control Appeal No. 01 of 2011, is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Rent Control Appeal No. 01 of 2011, filed by Smt. Usha Gupta and others shall stand restored to the file of learned Appellate Authority, who shall decide the said appeal on merits, expeditiously. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Dt: 21ST April, 2026 Navin 6 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a1 31bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56 D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.04.30 15:48:05 +05'30'