RAM AUTAR Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as they are directed against the same order dated 30th of July, 1979. The Prescribed Authority exercising powers under Sec. 43 (2)(rr) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, directed the eviction of the petitioner. Ram Autar and at the same time rejected the objection of Smt. Kalawati Devi, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7574 of 1979.

(2.) The relevant facts are that Sheo Mahendra Kumar Singh (respondent No. 2 herein) filed an application in the year 1969 under Sec. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 for permission to file a suit against Ram Autar wand Sri Ram Chandra Mal in respect of two shops bearing Nos. 9 and 10 in Mandi Harbansganj, Dhampur. The application was filed on the ground that the shops had become dilapidated and worn out and the applicant proposed to demolish them and re-construct a new building with provision for residential accommodation on the first floor and shops on the ground floor. This application was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the order passed was affirmed in revision both by the Commissioner as well as by the State Government under Sec. 7 F of the aforesaid Act. Thereafter the said Sri Mahendra Kumar Singh instituted a suit against Ram Autar and the respondents Nos. 4 to 8, who are the heirs of one Ram Chandra Mal along with whom one Ram Autar, the husband of Smt. Kalawati Devi, are said to have taken the two shops in question on a monthly rental of Rs. 11.25.

(3.) While the suit was pending Sec. 43(2)(rr) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was amended enabling the landlords to make applications for eviction of their tenants if the permission obtained by them under Sec. 3 of the 1947 Act was based on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (I) or sub-section (21 of Sec. 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, provided the same had become final before the commencement of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. It is not disputed that the permission had become final before the commencement of this Act.