GOVIND PRASAD Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorart quashing the order dated 14.1.1993 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 by which the vacancy has been declared.

(2.) The dispute in the present writ petition relates to the accommodation known as House No. 6/245 Belanganj, Agra. The respondents happened to be the owner of the aforesaid premises and the petitioner is the tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 7. On 15.10.1991, an application was filed by the respondents under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act for release of the premises on the ground that the petitioner/ tenant has acquired a residential building, i.e., No. 11-T/B-667, situated in Trans Yamuna Colony, Agra in a vacant state and as such, premises will be deemed to be vacant and thus available for release. The respondents further claimed that their family consists of six persons and due to growing need of the family members, the premises require release. The contest was put by the petitioner on the ground that he has not acquired any residential building in vacant state. It was stated that his mother, during life time of his father applied for E.W.S. quarter in the year 1972 which was allotted in her favour but she died in 1976. It was further stated that although, the quarter was allotted to the petitioner's mother, but its money was deposited by one Darshan Dayal Singhal and it was never acquired and occupied by the petitioner. It has also been stated that the registered agreement was executed 1'n favour of wife of Darshan Lal Singhal about aforesaid E.W.S. quarter and thus the petitioner has no alternative accommodation. In view of the aforesaid rival claim, a report was called by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer upon which on 1.11.1991, the Rent Control Inspector submitted his report to the effect that the quarter No. 11-T/B-667 in Trans Yamuna Colony was allotted in the name of petitioner's mother and after her death, it came to be recorded in the name of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 on consideration of rival claims of the parties and in view of the material as has come on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has acquired accommodation in his name and therefore, under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the premises in question will be deemed to be vacant and thus passed the impugned order, against which the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the view as has been taken by respondent No. 1 that the premises in question will be deemed to be vacant is clearly erroneous as the petitioner has never become owner or came in occupation of house No. 11-T/B-667, Trans Yamuna Colony, Agra. Learned counsel submits that although, the said quarter was allotted in the name of petitioner's mother, but as the entire money was paid by Darshan Lal Singhal and thereafter, registered agreement was executed in favour of Smt. Nargis Singhal wife of Darshan Singh to purchase the said house, the petitioner never became owner of the aforesaid house. Learned counsel submits that family of the petitioner consists of large number of members and he is in tenancy of the premises in question since more than 50 years and thus by the order of respondent No. 1, the petitioner has to suffer irreparably. Lastly, it has been argued that as the house No. 11-T/B-667, Trans Yamuna Colony, Agra, was allotted prior to the commencement of Act No. 13 of 1972 and thereafter the provisions as contained in Section 16 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will not be attracted and the premises in question cannot be declared vacant. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in B. N. Kohli v. District Magistrate and Ors., 1982 ARC 388, Hafiz Shafat Ali v. State of U. P. and Ors., 1979 ALR 472 and Budhmal Gupta v. Vinod Gupta. 1979 ARC 441.