TANAUWWAR NABI KHAN Vs. RASHIKAHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant-tenant is aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court in writ jurisdiction, setting aside the order dated December 5, 1996 passed by the Additional District Judge and upholding the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'R.C.O.') in a proceeding under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter after referred to as 'the Act'). Consequently the ordre made in his favour was set aside, directing the R.C.O. to dispose of landlord's application under Section 18(3) of the Act to put the parties back in the position which they occupied before the allotment order.

(3.) The disputed premises belongs to one Rashiq Ahmed, a resident in England, who executed Power of Attorney on his behalf to Atique Ahmad sometime in the year 1992 who in due course of management let out the house in dispute to one Mr. Ansar Hussain on a monthly rent of Rs. 700/-. On 1st August, 1995, he intimated through notice to the R.C.O. that since his business of brass utensils was not doing well he has decided to vacate the premises by the end of the month. The appellant's case is that Atique Ahmad was duly informed accordingly. On coming to know this the appllant made an application for allotment of the said premises to the R.C.O. On the 4th August, 1995 the said officer declared through notification that the said house in dispute was about to fall vacant hence 16th August, 1995 is fixed for deciding the question of allotment/release. A copy of this order was directed to be put up on the Notice Board of his office and also to be served on the landlord through his mukhtiar-e-am Atique Ahmad. In the margin of this order Atique Ahmad signed in token of his presence and service of the order. It is the case of the appellant that on 14th August, 1995 he approached the said Atique Ahmad and also the outgoing tenant, namely, Anzar Hussain. The later sold his entire machinery installed in the house in dispute to the appellant for Rs. 55,000/- which was duly paid to him on the same date. This written transaction was with the consent of said Atique Ahmad, representative of the landlord. At the same time an agreement was also executed between the said Atique Ahmad and the appellant. By that the rent of the premises in question is increased from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 800/- with an advance of Rs. 30,000/- to be adjusted in rent in future. This agreement was filed before the RCO. On the 16th August, 1995, the RCO allotted the said premises in favour of appellant by recording that no objection is filed against the declaration of vacancy. The order recorded only one application of the appellant has been received with the consent and agreement of the owner of the premises in his favour. Further case of the appellant is later, on account of dishonesty, the said Atique Ahmad in connivance with his brother Mohd. Athar, on 21st August, 1995, acting on behalf of the landlord (Rashik Ahmed) made an application under Section 16(5) of the Rent Control Act for review of the allotment order. The case set up was that Power of Attorney in favour of Atique Ahmad was cancelled by Dr. Rashik Ahmed on 17th November, 1994 and fresh Power of Attorney was executed in favour of Mohd. Athar on 31st January, 1995. It is not in dispute that both Atique Ahmad and Mohd. Athar are brothers.