ABDUL WALI Vs. STATE OF UP AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner made an attempt to the RC and EO, the Respondent No. 2, for the allotment of the shop in dispute in his favour on or about 14 -11 -58. There was also a rival Applicant, the Respondent No. 3. The RC and EO, by his order dated 17 -12 -58; allotted the shop in dispute to the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 3 then moved the State Government Under Section 7 -F of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) to set aside the order of the RC and EO The State Government, by its order dated 26 -10 -59, has set aside the order of the RC and EO. Feeling aggrieved by this order the Petitioner has come to this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE State Government has set aside the order of the RC and EO on the ground that the Petitioner was a minor and that a contract with a minor was not enforceable at law. Sri Kacker, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, questioned both the premises of the State Government order. He has submitted that the Petitioner was not a minor. It appears that the record of the allotment case contains two documents. One of them is the affidavit of the Respondent No. 3 to the effect that according to the scholar's register of the institution where the Petitioner had been reading, the Petitioner's birth date was 3 -2 -43. The other document is the written statement of the Petitioner submitted to the (sic) Government and in paragraph 9 of that document the Petitioner has asserted that he was 19 years of age. It is further stated in that paragraph that as usual the Petitioner's parents gave a declaration of a lesser age to the institution, where he was admitted. This admission indirectly accepts the allegation of the Respondent No. 3 that according to the age mentioned in the Scholar's register the Petitioner was born on 3 -2 -43. The State Government accepted the version of the Respondent No. 3 aS to the minority of the Petitioner; and I do not think it can be said here that the State Government, while accepting the version of the Respondent No. 3, acted arbitrarily or unreasonably or with cut good faith, I cannot accordingly reverse the finding of the State Government that the Petitioner was a minor on the date of the passing of the allotment order in his favour.

(3.) SUB -section (2) of Section 7 of the Act authorises the District Magistrate to require a landlord to let or not to let to any "person" any accommodation which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant. Sri Kacker says that a minor is undoubtedly a person and that is all that the State Government should have looked at. The decisive question, therefore, is what is the true meaning of the word "person" in Sub -section (2) of Section 7. For determining the true meaning of that word it will be necessary to examine the scheme of the Act and the context of the word 'person'. The preamble of the Act indicates its object, which is to provide for the continuance of powers to control the letting and the rent of accommodations, an to prevent the eviction of tenants therefrom. The avowed object of the Act therefore is to regulate the creation of tenancies, fixation of rent a ad the ejectment of tenants. For toe accomplishment of the avowed object of the Act the District Magistrate is authorised by Sub -section (2) of Section 7 to direct a landlord to let an accommodation to a person. Sub -section (4) of Section 7 empowers the District Magistrate to require, on an application made to him by the landlord, a prospective tenant of any accommodation in respect of which an order has been made Under Sub -section (2) to pay to the landlord an advance of rent equal to one month's rent whether the accommodation is to be let on monthly basis and to one -half of the yearly rent where the accommodation is to be let on a yearly basis. The next important Section is Section 5. Sub -section (1) thereof provides that except as otherwise provided in Section 5 the rent payable for any accommodation, to which this Act applies, shall be such as may to agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant. Sub -section (3) thereof provides that if any accommodation to which the Act applies is let out after the commencement of this Act without the rent being agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, the rent fixed Under Sub -section (2) shall be payable from the date of the commencement of the tenancy. Sub -section (4) thereof provides that if the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, claims that the annual reasonable rent of any accommodation to which the Act applies, is inadequate or excessive or if the tenant claims that the agreed rent is higher than the annual reasonable rent he may institute a suit for fixation of rent in the Court of the Munsif having territorial jurisdiction if the annual rent claimed or payable is Rs. 500/ - or less and in the court of the Civil Judge having territorial jurisdiction if it exceeds Rs. 500/ -. Sub -section (1) of Section 7 -B provides that when any tenant, who is in occupation of an accommodation in pursuance of an order made under the provisions of Sub -section (2) of Section 7, is in arrears of rent or any instalment thereof for more than three months, the landlord may make an application to the Munsif having territorial jurisdiction for an order of ejectment of the tenant from that accommodation.