SUKH DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Sukh Devi has filed this petition challenging the order of the State Government passed under S. 7-F of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by which the State Govern ment allowed the revision filed by Put-tan Lal Pandey. respondent No. 3, and cancelled the allotment order passed under Section 7 (2) of the Act directing the landlord to let out the accommoda tion in dispute to the petitioner Smt. Sukh Devi.

(2.) THE premises in dispute be longed to Ram Narain and Sheo Shan-kar. There was a sitting tenant by name Bhagwan Din. Puttan Lal alleged that the shop had been vacated by Bhagwan. Din and he applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for an order under S. 7 (2) of the Act in his favour. On 14-9-1960, an allotment order in favour of Puttan Lal was passed. A suit was then filed by Bhagwan Din against Puttan Lal for an injunction to restrain Puttan Lal from occupying the accommodation in dispute in pursuance of the allotment order referred to above. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeals filed by the plaintiff in the first court as well as in this court were also dismissed. The second appeal was dismissed on December 14, 1966. The Court in that suit recorded the finding that the accom modation had fallen vacant as contem plated under Section 3 of the Act and as such the allotment order passed in fav our of Puttan Lal was not illegal. An other suit was filed by the landlord against Bhagwan Din for his ejectment On the ground of illegal sub-letting. This suit ended in a compromise decree under which Bhagwan Din was to vacate the premises. Sukh Devi filed an applica tion before the Rent Control and Evic tion Officer for allotment in her favour and the allotment order was passed in her favour on 24-4-1965. In the suit filed by Bhagwan Din he had alleged that he had taken Laxmi Narain only as a partner and hence the premises could not be deemed to have fallen vacant. The finding of the Court, however was that the partnership was fictitious and that Bhagwan Din had vacated the pre mises and allowed Laxmi Narain to col into possession without any authority law. During the pendency of the suit there was also an interim injunction by which Puttan Lal had been restrained from enforcing the allotment order dated 14-9-1960 and from dislodging the plain tiff from the shop in dispute. After the suit finally ended with the dismissal of the second appeal. Puttan Lal filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the cancellation of the allotment order dated 24-4-1965 pas sed in favour of Smt. Sukh Devi. The application was filed on the ground that the order was taken by Sukh Devi by concealment of relevant facts, viz. the existence of an earlier allotment order in favour of Puttan Lal and the pendency of the suit in which the interim ini unc tion had been issued. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer dismissed the appli cation as, according to him, the allot ment order in favour of Sukh Devi had exhausted itself by her taking possession of the premises as a tenant. He accept ed the plea of Sukh Devi that a lease had come into being in her favour on the basis of the allotment order and she had entered into possession on that basis. The State Government allowed the revi sion of Puttan Lal on the finding that Sukh Devi had not entered into posses sion and the possession still continued to be of her sons who had earlier taken pos session illegally from Bhagwan Deen. On the basis of the circumstances mentioned in the order the State Government fur ther found that Sukh Devi had know-' ledge of the previous proceedings and the same had been concealed from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and that if the facts had been brought before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the second allotment order in favour of the petitioner could not have been passed. On these findings the State Government p ssed the impugned order.

(3.) UNDER S. 7-F a revision is main tainable against an order of allotment directing an accommodation to be let out to any person. When Puttan Lal applied for cancellation of the allotment order in favour of Sukh Devi he really chal lenged the order of allotment in her fav our and the proceedings thus became amenable to the iurisdiction of the State Government. The State Government had jurisdiction to revise the order of allotment passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, and was within its jurisdiction when it cancelled the order of allotment in proceedings initiated by the revision filed by Puttan Lal.