BHUNESHWAR RAI Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. B.D. Mandhyan and Mr. Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the respondents. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 30th June, 1998 whereby the building in question has been declared as vacant.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case, question of the title was involved. In the proceedings under Section 16 read with Section 12 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent, and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the 'Act' the question of title could not be decided. The authority below, therefore, acted illegally in excess of its jurisdiction in proceeding with the case and declaring the building in question as vacant.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. From a perusal of the impugned order. It is apparent and the authority below simply looked into the question of vacancy after dealing with the evidence produced by the parties and ultimately, declared the building in question as vacant. The proceedings under Section 16 of the Act are summary in nature. The order passed in this case has got no binding effect on the parties when a case taken to and is decided by a Court on the regular side. Petitioner, if aggrieved by the impugned order, could file a suit for declaration of his rights. It is stated that the suit has already been filed, which is pending in the Civil Court. If it is so, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. The order passed in the present proceeding by the authority below or by this Court, will have no adverse effect on the rights of the parties. The suit shall be decided on the basis of evidence produced by the parties before the Civil Court. In view of what has been stated above, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.