RAM LAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant of premises situate in Azad Nagar. Kanpur City. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the landlords. An applica tion under Section 3 of the Rent Control juid Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made by the respondents seeking permission for filing a suit for ejecting the petitioner. The Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer granted the per mission. The petitioner thereafter pre ferred a revision before the Commissioner, Allahabad. The Commissioner found that the landlord had sufficient ac-i commodation and accommodation in the disputed quarter was almost similar, and that the family of the petitioner consisted] of seven units while that of the landlord consisted of nine units. He held, that the need of the landlord for additional accommodation was not of a pressing nature, and if permission for eviction wa granted from the accommodation in which the tenant had been living for the lastl twenty-four years, it would be difficult for him to get an alternative accommoda tion in Kanpur. where the housing pro- i blem was very acute.

(2.) THE landlords thereafter filed a revision under Section 7(f) of the Act. ] They stated in paragraph 5 of the memo i of revision under Section 7(f) of the Act, that the tenant was retiring in 1970 and has his own house at Shahiahanpur and as such can easily live at Shahiahanpur and does not require the revision on the reasoning that it was not convenient for the family of the landlord to live in t)he accommodation available with them, and therefore, the need for additional accom modation was genuine. Considering the need of the petitioner, it took the view that inasmuch as the petitioner was an employee in the Government Agricultu ral College, Kanpur where he could get accommodation it would not be reason able to permit the petitioner to continue residing in the disputed accommodation. It also found fault with the petitioner for not having applied for allotment of Government premises although as late as 1-9-1967. applications had been called for. In view of these finding, the revi sion was allowed, and permission was granted to file a suit.

(3.) FROM a perusal of the order of the State Government, it is clear that. one of the grounds which weighed with] the State Government was that the peti-j tioner was a Government servant em-j ployed in the Agricultural College, I Kanpur. and that it was possible for him] to get a house at that place. This as sumption was completely erroneous. As has been seen, the petitioner in his ob jection had clearly stated that he had already retired from Government service. The respondents in their revision peti tion which is Annexure "B" to the counter-affidavit had themselves stated in paragraph 5 of that petition that the petitioner was retiring in January 1970. That being so, there was no material on the basis of which the State Government could assume that it would be possible lor the tenant to be accommodated in the Agricultural College, Kanpur. This as sumption clearly vitiates the finding of the State Government. It also appears that the State Government did not com pare the needs of the landlord and the tenant. All that it did was to hold that it was possible for the petitioner to get Government premises and to find fault with the petitioner for not having made an application for allotment of such pre mises. It omitted to consider the exist ing needs of the tenant. This the State Government was bound to do while deciding the revision. In Asa Singh v. B. D. Sanwal, 1968 All LJ 713 = (AIR 1969 All 474) a Full Bench of this Court has held that the District Magistrate is bound to compare the needs of the land lord and tenant while deciding the ap plication under Section 3 of the Act. In the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1188 of 1971 decided by me today. I have held that the principles laid down in that case are applicable at the stage of revision proceedings under Section 7(f) of the Act. Counsel for the respondents has. how ever, urged that it was not necessary for the State Government to compare the needs of the landlord and the tenant while exercising its powers under Section 7(f) of the Act. This contention does not sur vive in view of what has been held in C. M. P. 1188 of 1971.