MASOODAHMAD Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court rendered in a Special Appeal upholding the order of the State Government dated March 12, 1968 under S. 7-F of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 1947 cancelling the allotment order of a shop in premises No. 80/79, Banasmandi Coupergani. Kanpur dated October 21, 1967 made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Kanpur in favour of the appellant and releasing the same to the respondent No. 3 before us

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows. One Arif Hussein was a tenant of one shop out of eight in the premises mentioned above under respondent No. 3. He used to carry on a business in bamboos and wooden posts. On July 8, 1967 he purported to execute a sale deed transferring his business including its good will and stock-in-trade to the appellant, Masood Ahmed. Within three days thereafter the said tenant died leaving a widow The appellant made an application dated July 23/28 to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'officer' ) for allotment of the shop of himself under the provisions of the Act on the strength of his purchase of the business and the stock-in-trade. On enquiry through an inspector, the officer came to learn that the widow was still in occupation. On August 9, 1967 the officer rejected the appellant's application holding that there was no vacancy. On the same day the widow intimated the officer that she would be vacating the shop after the Iddat period. She followed this up by writing to the officer on August 26, 1967 that she had vacated the shop and given possession thereof to the appellant. On September 4 the officer directed his inspector to enquire and report. On receipt of a letter from the appellant dated the 16th September praying for allotment of the shop on the ground of the widow's having vacated it and his aforementioned purchase, the officer called for a report again. This appears to have been submitted on the 18th September. On 30th September the officer ordered publication of a notification that the shop was vacant. Such a notification was issued on the 4th October. It appears that besides the appellant there was another applicant for allotment of the shot. On 21st October, 1967 the Allotment Committee considered both the applications and recommended allotment to the apellant. On the same day, the officer allotted the shop in terms of the recommendation. On December 7, 1967 respondent No. 3 filed a revision application under s. 7-F of the Act of the State Government. Therein he stated that the building as a whole was a very old one, that two shops adjoining Arif Hussain's were without any roof and in his occupation though vacant and that the whole building required demolition and complete reconstruction. He stated further that he intended to utilise the site by demolishing the old building and constructing a modern cinema hall and a marketing centre with office flats and had by letter dated Aug. 24, 1967 asked the officer that in case the shop of Arif Hussain fell vacant it should not be allotted to anybody but released in his favour to enable him to carry out his plan. His further case was that though he had not heard of the result of his application, he came to learn that the officer had passed an allotment order in favour of the appellant on the 21st October. His complaint was that all this was done behind his back and that he was being deliberately kept in ignorance of the whole matter. He alleged that he had no knowledge that the shop was being treated as vacant and complained that the illegal occupation of the appellant was being shielded and condoned by the allotment order without considering his own application for release made on the 24th August. The appellant filed his reply on January 16, 1968 whereupon Government called for a report from the officer which was submitted on the 23rd January. In this mention was made of the rejection of the first application by the appellant on the ground of the widow's continuance in occupation and it was stated that upon the second report to the effect that the widow had left the shop making over possession to the appellant that shop was declared vacant and notified for allotment. With regard to respondent No. 3 it was said that he had never applied for release of the shop in proper time but had submitted an application by ordinary post antedated the 24th August 1967 which was received only on the 13th December. It was asserted further that the landlord had never cared to enquire about the fate of his application. In the premises no notice was required to be given to him of the allotment in favour of the appellant which had been made in due course.

(3.) The order of the State Government shows that it was made on a persual of the record. The view taken by the revising authority was that the landlord's release application dated August 2, 1967 "was not considered by the officer as it should have been" and that "the allotment order in favour of the opposite party (the appellant) was made to regularise the illegal occupation of the premises in dispute." According to the order "the opposite party was sucessful in securing an allotment order when he should in fact have been proceeded against under the provisions of the Act for illegal occupation with the assistance of the widow of the former tenant." In the result the State Government set aside the order of allotment and directed release of the accommodation in dispute to the landlord for reconstruction.