RAM RATI Vs. VIDYA SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VACANCY in respect of an accommodation was notified on November 9, 1978. From the impugned order of the District Judge, Kanpur, Respondent No. 3 it appears that thereafter a notice was issued to Smt. Ram Rati who was admittedly the landlord of the aforesaid accommodation at that time under Rule 9(3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules 1972 intimating her the date fixed for considering the question of allotment of the said accommodation. This notice was served on Smt. Ram Rati on November 18, 1978. She made an application for release of the accommodation in question on November 20, 1978. This application was ultimately rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on May 9,1979. Thereafter on May 16, 1979 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order allotting the accommodation in question in favour of Respondent No. 1. On coming to know of this order Smt. Ram Rati made an application on May 23, 1979 for review under Section 16(5) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. This application was dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on November 20, 1979. A revision filed by Smt. Ram Rati was dismissed by the District Judge on December 18, 1979. Aggrieved Smt. Ram Rati filed the present writ petition. She died during the pendency of the writ petition and an application was made by Smt. Rajjo Devi for being substituted in her place on the basis of a Will said to have been executed in her favour by Smt. Ram Rati. An order was passed on January 25, 1983 on the said application to the following effect:

(2.) IT was urged by counsel for the Petitioner that no notice having been given to Smt. Ram Rati that the application for allotment made by Respondent No. 1 shall be considered on May 16, 1979, the order of allotment passed on that date was liable to be quashed for non -compliance of the mandatory requirement contained in Rule 9(3) of the Rules in this behalf. Having heard counsel for the parties I am of opinion that there is substance in this submission. Rule 9(3) provides:

(3.) IN the instant case also the order of allotment was sought to be set aside by Smt. Ram Rati on the ground that the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Act were attracted inasmuch as a part of the building was in her occupation for residential purposes and she was entitled to have a tenant of her own choice in the remaining part. According to her since no intimation was given to her about the date on which the applications for allotment were to be considered, she was deprived of her right to make nomination of a tenant of her choice as contemplated by Section 17(2) of the Act. A similar submission had been made before the District Judge but was repelled. It was held by the District Judge that after the application for release was dismissed on May 9, 1979 Smt. Ram Rati had ample opportunity of making a nomination under Section 17(2) of the Act, the order of allotment in favour of Respondent No. 1 having been passed on May 16, 1979. Suffice it to say so far as this view taken by the District Judge is concerned that under Section 17(2) of the Act no time has been fixed within which a nomination is to be made. Obviously the nomination can be made even on the date on which the applications for allotment are to be considered. It may be that in a given case the landlord may not have a tenant of his choice till the date on which his application for release is dismissed and may have a tenant of his choice thereafter. One of the purposes of issuing a notice to the landlord under Rule 9(3) of the Rules intimating him the date fixed for consideration of the question of allotment being to give him an opportunity to make a nomination under Section 17(2) of the Act, the said purpose will be frustrated unless the landlord knows the date on which the application for allotment are to be considered.