Lucknow, Jul 31 The Allahabad High Court on Friday held that the inspector of schools of a district has no authority to intervene in a private landlord-tenant dispute and quashed an order through which possession of a rented school building was restored to the tenant with police assistance.
Justice Jaspreet Singh of the Lucknow bench observed that the inspector was neither a necessary party nor an aggrieved person in the dispute.
The case concerns a building in Narhi, Lucknow, housing Vidya Mandir Girls School.
Petitioners Abha Goel and Amit Shekhar, the owners of the property, had obtained an eviction order under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, and were handed possession on June 4. Subsequently, the inspector of schools moved a recall application, following which the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) restored possession to the school without hearing the landlords.
The court ruled that the recall application filed by the inspector of schools and the subsequent order passed by the ADM without issuing notice to the landlords were wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
The court set aside the June 8 order by which possession of the property was taken from the landlords and handed back to Vidya Mandir Girls School.
It held that the order violated the principles of natural justice and amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power.
The court also imposed personal costs of Rs 25,000 each on the inspector of schools and the ADM, directing them to pay the amount from their salary accounts to the petitioners within one week.
The aided school, which benefited from the impugned order, was also directed to pay Rs 25,000 as costs.
The court further directed the appellate court to decide the pending rent appeal within a week.
he bench said that the inspector of schools failed to explain the legal provision empowering him to intervene in a purely private tenancy dispute.
The state relied on the Uttar Pradesh Educational Institution (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974, but the court rejected the contention, holding that the disputed premises belonged to private owners and not to the educational institution. Therefore, the provisions of the 1974 Act were inapplicable.
The verdict also records the court's concern over the appearance of Additional Advocate General Sudeep Kumar for both the state authorities and the private respondent school.
The court observed that once he had appeared for the private respondent, his simultaneous representation of the state and the inspector of schools raised a potential issue of conflict of interest.
While refraining from expressing any final opinion on the issue, the court remarked that such an arrangement "may not be desirable" and left it to the wisdom of the Additional Advocate General to introspect on the matter.
