SHRI PAL JAIN Vs. RAJ KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the landlords of an accommodation which they assert to have purchased in the year 1965. THEy made an application in October, 1973 for allotment of the said accommodation in their favour on the allegation that this accommodation had been let out to one Sardar Mal Jain in the year 1956 when the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was its owner, that Sardar Mal Jain, who was an employee of the Reserve Bank of India, Agra Branch, shifted from Agra to Delhi in the year 1958 and permitted respondent no. 1 to occupy the said accommodation and that in view of Section 12 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act 13 of 1972) Sardar Mal Jain will be deemed to have ceased to occupy the accommodation inasmuch as respondent no. 1 was not a member of his family within the meaning of the said term contained in the definition clause in Section 3 (g) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972. THE case of the petitioners was that their need for this accommodation was bona fide and since it was to be deemed to be vacant it may be allotted in their favour.

(2.) THE application was contested by respondent no. 1 inter alia on the ground that one Panna Lal had four sons-Phool Chand, Gulab Chand, Jawahar Lal and Manik Chand, that Sardar Mal Jain was the son of Manik Chand whereas respondent no. 1 was the son of Jawahar Lal and that in the year 1956 when the accommodation in question was allotted to Sardar Mal Jain all the aforesaid persons constituted a joint Hindu family but the allotment order was passed in favour of Sardar Mal Jain inasmuch as he was in the service of the Reserve Bank of India, Agra Branch, at that time. THE case of respondent no. 1 accordingly was that the accommodation in question had never been permitted to be occupied by him by Sardar Mal Jain within the meaning of Section 12 (1) (b) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972. Indeed he had been in occupation thereof from the very inception of the tenancy as a member of the joint Hindu family. He also asserted that the petitioners had sufficient accommodation at their disposal and their need was not at all bona fide. After considering the evidence produced by the parties the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, respondent no. 2, accepted the case of respondent no. 1 and dismissed the application for allotment made by the petitioner. A revision was filed by the petitioners against that order under Section 18 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 which was dismissed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Agra, respondent no. 3. It is these two orders which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(3.) IN the instant case as seen above the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has accepted the case of respondent no. 1 that he had been in occupation of the accommodation in question as a member of joint Hindu family along with Sardar Mal Jain right from the inception of the tenancy in 1956 when the said accommodation was allotted in the name of Sardar Mal Jain. It has not been disputed by counsel for the petitioner that the rent of the accommodation in question continued to be paid to the previous owner in the name of Sasdar Mal Jain even after his transfer from Agra to Delhi. Counsel for the petitioners has himself pointed out that after the accommodation was purchased by the petitioners the rent has been deposited under Section 7-C of U. P. Act 3 of 1947 in the name of Sardar Mal Jain. IN view of the findings, referred to above, recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction officer I am of opinion that Section 12(l)(b) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 is not attracted to the facts of the instant case even though retrospective in its operation as held in Smt. Keshar Bai's case (supra).