RAM PATI DEVI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Baijnath Prasad was the tenant of the house in dispute in the town of Ballia and was paying rent to the third respondent Rajendra Prasad. Baijnath died about 10 years prior to the institution of this writ petition. He was survived by his son who lives in Bombay and his widow Smt. Ram Pati Devi who is petitioner before this Court. ONE Dr. Swastika Pandey made an application inter alia stating that the petitioner has allowed the house to be occupied by other persons who are not members of her family and in fact the petitioner lived at Bombay with her son. It was also averred by her that the house should be deemed to be vacant under Section 12 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and may be allotted in the name of the said Dr. Swastika Pandey. A report was called for by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer from the Rent Inspector and he submitted the said report on August 21, 1979. Petitioner filed a copy to the application of Dr. Swastika Pandey on September 6, 1979. On the same date an application was moved which was accompanied by an affidavit by respondent 3 for the release of the accommodation on the ground that the same was required by him bonafide for his personal use. On receipt of the said application the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Inspector to make a fresh inspection. The Housing Inspector submitted his second report on October 22, 1979.

(2.) THEREAFTER a number of dates were fixed in the case but except on a few dates in the beginning, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Finally the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his composite order dated 19th December 1979 held that the house in dispute must be deemed to be vacant and released the same in favour of the third respondent. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge. The said revision was also dismissed by an order dated May 5, 1980. There is no controversy between the parties in so far as the above facts are concerned.

(3.) THE first question to be considered is whether the report of the Rent Control Inspector could be deemed to be evidence on the basis of which it could be held that the petitioner allowed the accommodation in dispute to be occupied by a person other than members of her family. Section 34 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 deals with powers of various authorities appointed under the Act and the procedure to be followed by them. One of the powers conferred in the said authorities is that of issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or documents or local investigations. Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act further empowers the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to obtain a report from the Rent Control Inspector in case of vacancy or deemed vacancy. That being so it cannot be legitimately argued that the report submitted by the Inspector is a mere waste paper and should not have been taken into account. It is further to be borne in mind that the report of a Commissioner appointed by a Court can be read as evidence even in a suit or other civil proceedings and forms part of the record. THE order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and by the District Judge in appeal cannot therefore be characterised as passed on no evidence.