BHAKAT SHIROMANI Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a landlord who seeks to have quashed an allotment order made under the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act in favour of respondent 2. Respondent 1 is the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of a building in Motilal Nehru Road, Allahabad, which has been sub-divided into two parts known as 11a and 11b. It is a two storyed building and the petitioner occupies the whole of 11a and the first floor of 11b. The premises which are the subject of the allotment order are the ground floor of 11b. The case for the petitioner is that he was not consulted before the allotment order in favour of respondent 2 was made as is required by Rule 7 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Rules.

(3.) THE allotment order, which has not been produced, was made on 24-3-1953. The petitioner had, prior to this date, written several letters to the Rent Control Officer asking that the disputed accommodation be allotted to him, but on 21-3-1953, that is three days before the allotment order was made, he wrote a further letter to the Rent Control Officer saying that he had no objection if the premises were allotted to one Sjt. Kr. Trilochan Pandit Singh Ji. The learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, has argued that as at the time of making the allotment order respondent 1 had before him this letter of the petitioner dated the 21st March, he was aware of the wishes of the petitioner and that there was, therefore, a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Rule 7, we do not think this contention can be upheld. In the first place it is clear from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent 1 that all that the latter took into account at the time of making the order of allotment were the relative needs of the petitioner, and respondent 2, In the second place Rule 7 provides that where a portion of an accommodation falls vacant and the owner is in occupation of another portion, the Rent control Officer must before making an allotment order, "consult the owner and shall, so far as possible make the allotment in accordance with the wishes of the owner. " in our opinion the purpose of this rule is to avoid, as far as possible, the friction and difficulties which may arise in those cases in which an owner has, in effect, to share his house with a tenant of whom for some reason he may disapprove; and that when the rule provides that the Rent control Officer shall "consult the owner" it means that the owner has to be consulted as to the suitability of the proposed tenant. It is clear in this case that this was not done.