MADHUKAR M. LAPLIKAR Vs. D.V. HINGWE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The story behind this appeal, though not very relevant, reveals interesting facts. One N. H. Ray of Calcutta either abandoned or disappeared or died since about 1929 and his house being the premises in dispute in Nagpur lay abandoned and his heirs were not known, letters written by authorities in Nagpur and by the tenants in Nagpur to the address 'N. H. Ray, Calcutta' naturally remained unanswered. It is alleged that a notice of sale of the premises in question was given in the name of one Tapan Roy in the local newspaper. But one Bratindranath Roy describing himself to be the holder of the power of attorney on behalf of the heirs of late N. H. Ray is alleged to have sold the premises in question. The Southern portion was sold to the respondent D. V. Hingwe and one M. Lapalikar became the allottee of the premises in question in 1960. He wants to stay on in the premises. The alleged transferee or alienee of the property from the alleged heirs of N. H. Ray fights this appeal in this Court after the allotment has been cancelled by the House Allotment Officer in favour of the appellant, Lapalikar. But in this appeal this Court is concerned with a very short question - whether the appellant was granted allotment as a government employee or evictee in terms of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter called the said 'Rent Control Order').

(2.) In order to appreciate the point, it is necessary to bear in mind that the appellant previously was. residing in another house since 1941 at House No. 546 situated at Dhantoli area at Nagpur. The landlord of the appellant sued for permission to evict the appellant from the said premises on the grounds of bona fide need of the landlord. Such permission was granted against the appellant in respect of the said house on 23rd May, 1955. The appeal in respect of the same was dismissed by an order dated 26th November. 1955. Since then the appellant had been evicted from the premises which was in his occupation and has no residential accommodation of his own. He was a Central Government employee - being an employee of the Post and Telegraph Department of the Government of India. He made an application for allotment of the premises in dispute, namely 406/1 in Nagpur under Cl. 24-A under the said Control Order.

(3.) It is necessary in order to appreciate the controversy in this appeal to refer to certain documents in this connection. On or about 25th January, 1960, Shri Lapalikar, the appellant herein, wrote a letter to the Additional Collector, Nagpur. In the said letter the appellant described himself after stating his name 'Clerk P. M. G. Office, Nagpur and a registered evictee'. In the said letter, the appellant stated that one Dr. Shirali occupied the premises in question which belonged to one Shri N. H. Ray. As Shri Shirali proposed to vacate the premises in near future, he had agreed to let it out to the appellant in case permission was granted to him to that effect. He, therefore, prayed that the said house might be allotted to him in his own name in view of his difficulties and priorities. This document appears in the Paper Book as 'a copy'. Thereafter on 27th January, 1960, the Additional Deputy Collector, Nagpur, communicated to the appellant at P.M.G. Office, Nagpur that the premises in question has been 'provisionally allotted to you under Cl. 24-A of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1948 subject to further orders by the Additional Deputy Collector, Nagpur'. This is also a copy which appears in the Paper Book and which was produced by the appellant. It is necessary to emphasise this aspect of the production by the appellant in order to consider a contention urged by Shri Lalit, the learned advocate on behalf of the appellant.