RAMESH CHANDRA AND ANOTHER Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (CIVIL SUPPLY), DELIGATED AUTHORITY, MEERUT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was dismissed by me vide order dated 15th May, 2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) This petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 13th March, 1995 whereby an application was filed by Shri Shamsher Tyagi dated 11th Jan., 1991 for allotment of the shop in question, which was in tenancy of Shri Bakey Lal as is supported by the report of the Rent Control Inspector, submitted by him on 31st Jan., 1991. In his report he has stated that the shop is very old which was under the tenancy of Shri Bakey Lal from the year 1976, initial rent was Rs. 17/- with water tax and at present the rent is Rs. 40.00. It is also stated that in the year 1979-80 shop was divided into two parts and Shri Bakey Lal handed over one part of the shop to Shri Ramesh Chandra Goel. The landlord filed a suit before the Small Cause Court for vacating the shop in question. But in the year 1980 a compromise took place between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord made partition of the shop and gave one of it to Shri Ramesh Chandra Goel on monthly rent of Rs. 100.00 and accepted him as tenant. The Rent Control Inspector further stated in his report that on spot inspection Petition decided accordingly.the brother of Shri Ramesh Chandra Goel was available in the shop in question and he found that since one portion of the shop was in possession of somebody else, the other part of the Neelu Pen was deemed to be vacant. On the aforesaid report of the Rent Control inspector a notice was issued to the landlord as well as the contesting parties to file objection. It was stated in the objection that the shop is legally vacant as the shop is allotted to the unauthorised person without any allotment order. Shri Bakey Lal submitted in his objection that in the year 1971 he entered into an agreement of partnership with Shri Ramesh Chandra Goel and started a business in the name of Neelu Pen Company. This partnership was registered, which clearly shows that Shri Ramesh Chandra Goel and Shri Bakey Lal were the partner. Landlord filed a suit in the year 1979 wherein stated that the shop in question has been given to R.K. Tailor unauthorised, but later on a compromise was made between the parties and objector himself separated from Neelu Pen Company and in portion of the shop in question tenancy of Shri Ramesh Chandra Goel and his brother was accepted. The occupier Shri Brijendra Kumar filed an objection that he was there with the consent of the landlord and pay Rs. 720.00 to the landlord, since the landlord was pressing for enhancement of rent. Therefore, from these proceedings and from the partnership deep it appears that the landlord accepted the tenancy. Even assuming that Shri Brijendra Kumar did business with his brother Shri Ramesh Chandra in the name of 'Brijendra' Brothers' but same cannot be done without the consent of the District Magistrate as is required under the Provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, but this does not confer any statutory right in law to the occupier and shop would be deemed as vacant. In support of its findings the Rent Control Officer has given sufficient reasons.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to assail the reasons and findings but in my opinion same have no effect. In this view of the matter the order does not require any interference in exercise of power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.