BHUPAL SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, ALIMORA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the landlords of an accommodation. It was let out to the Director of Horticulture and Fruit Utilisation, Ranikhet, Almora, respondent No. 4. The suit was instituted by the petitioners against the State of Uttar Pradesh respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 4 aforesaid inter alia for their ejectment from the accommodation in question on the ground that respondents 3 and 4 had started using the accommodation in question for a purpose inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let out to them and also that they had sublet a portion of the said accommodation. In regard to the purpose for which the accommodation in question was let out to respondent No. 4, the case of the petitioners was as in clear from paragraph 3 of the plaint, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition that it was to use the accommodation in question as a godown. In regard to sub-letting the case of the petitioners was that respondent No. 4 had permitted the Accounts Officer of the department of Horticulture and Fruit Utilization, Ranikhet to occupy a portion thereof for residential purposes. The suit was contested by the defendants. Paragraph 13 of their written statement, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition indicates that their case was that half of the accommodation in question was being used by respondent No. 1 for keeping important documents of the department and that the remaining half had been used even since 1960 for residential purposes by the Accounts Officer of the department in order to ensure the safety of the important documents kept in the remaining half portion of the accommodation in question. The suit was decreed by the Judge, Small Causes but has been dismissed by the District Judge on a revision filed by the tenants under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It is this order of the District Judge which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) It has been urged by counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 4 had started using the accommodation in question for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was let out as well as their case that portion of the said accommodation had been sublet by respondent No. 4 for residential purposes to the Account Officer of the department, was clearly established and the District Judge committed a manifest error of law in taking a contrary view.

(3.) Having heard counsel for the parties I find it difficult to agree with the submission. As seen above, the accommodation in question was let out to respondent No. 4 to be used as a godown and half of the said accommodation is being used for storing important document of the department of Horticulture and Fruit Utilization. In the every nature of things if important documents of a government department are being kept in a building some responsible officer has to be kept in charge for the safety of those documents and if the Accounts Officer of that very department has been permitted to occupy a portion of the accommodation in question to ensure safety of those documents it cannot be said that the accommodation in question is being used for a purpose inconsistent with the purpose for which it was let out. Indeed, it is a purpose ancillary to the main purpose. Likewise when the Director of Horticulture and Fruit Utilization Ranikhet, Almora was the tenant and he had permitted an Accounts Officer of his department to occupy a portion of the accommodation in question for the purpose mentioned above it can by no stretch of imagination be construed to be a case of sub-letting. The mere fact that a portion of the rent payable for the accommodation in question is deducted from the salary of the Accounts Officer in lieu of his being provided with a residential accommodation for the purpose referred to above will not make it a case of sub-letting. Further, the District Judge has pointed out that the petitioners had by a letter marked as Ex. A-1 agreed to the accommodation in the question being occupied by officers of the department for residential purposes provided the rent was enhanced. The District Judge has further found that it was admitted that thereafter the rent had been enhanced and had also been accepted by the petitioners. In this view of the matter it is not possible to take the view that the impugned order passed by the District Judge suffers either from any manifest error of law or error of jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.