MOHAN SINGH BEDI Vs. PHOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's petition arising from proceedings for release" and allotment of residential accommodation under Section 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Additional District Magistrate, Rent Control, Lucknow rejected the landlady's application for release and allotted the premises in dispute to Phool Chand, opposite party No. 1. His order has been confirmed by the learned District Judge. The landlady Smt. Leela Devi therefore preferred writ petition in this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition she sold the building to Mohan Singh Bedi who applied for substitution and was brought on record in place of the original petitioner vide Court's order, dated 4-8-1980.

(2.) For the purpose of deciding this petition it is not necessary to state in detail the case set up by the respective parties before the authorities below. Suffice it to say that the case of Leela Devi was that she bona fide required the premises in dispute for occupation by herself and by members of her family as the rented accommodation in her occupation was insufficient for her requirements and further the landlord of the said accommodation was pressing her to vacate the same. Opposite Party No. 1 claimed allotment in his favour on the ground that the accommodation at his disposal was insufficient for his requirements. Thus both the parties pressed their claim on the basis of bona fide personal need. It may be mentioned, that after, allotment had been made in favour of opposite party No. 1, no application had been preferred under Section 16(4) for enforcement of the order. Admittedly the room in dispute was vacant. Both the authorities below negatived the claim of Leela Devi and upheld the claim of opposite party No. 1.

(3.) At the time of the hearing of the writ petition preliminary objection was raised by Sri Kailash Nath, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 regarding the right of Mohan Singh Bedi to get himself substituted in place of Leela Devi and to continue the writ petition. According to the learned counsel the right of release claimed under Section 16 is a personal right and, therefore, the transferee from the previous landlord cannot claim substitution and is also not entitled to continue the petition. The learned counsel invited my attention to Section 34 (4) of the Act and argued that under this provi-non substitution could be claimed only in case of death and only in respect of proceedings for determination of standard rent or for eviction from a building. According to the learned counsel since the ingredients for the applicability of Sub-section (4) of Section 34 are wanting in the present case, Mohan Singh Bedi could not claim substitution.