TARA DEVI Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun where under in the proceedings under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U P. Act No. 13 of 1972) the premises in dispute have been declared to be vacant and this vacancy has been notified fixing 17 -5 -93 for consideration of the premises in question for allotment/release, the Petitioners have now approached this Court for redress seeking the quashing of the aforesaid order passers by Respondent No. 1. The Petitioners claimed that the premises in dispute had been let out to them by Colonel Khushhal Singh on 1 -10 -75. According to them no rent receipt was issued to them by Col. Khushhal Singh who died in the year 1983 leaving behind Smt. Neelam Thapa, Ravi S. Thapa and Ramesh Thapa as his heirs. It has been asserted in para 7 of the writ petition that the Petitioners continued to reside in the premise in dispute with the consent of the landlord sod being the tenant or lessee in occupation of the building with the consent of the landlord before 5 -7 -76 in the absence of any suit for their eviction having been filed against them, they became unauthorised licensee or tenant of the building. In para 8 of the writ petition the claim of the Petitioners is that since the landlord had allowed the premises in question to be occupied by the Petitioners and the said occupancy has been regularised on 5 -7 -76, consequently, the Petitioners would be tenants by operation o: law.

(2.) IT appears from the record that the Petitioners had filed a salt being suit No. 141 of 1990 against the landlords in the court of Munsif, Dehradun praying for a decree of declaration that they were continuing to be in possession of the premises in dispute as tenants since 1 -12 -75 at a rental of Rs. 100/ - par month and were entitled to the benefits of Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the Defendants could not eject them from the premises in dispute otherwise then in accordance with law. Apart from the above relief, the Petitioners -Plaintiffs also prayed in that suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants either from dispossessing them from the property in suit otherwise than in accordance with law or be instrumental to any proceeding for their eviction. In the aforesaid suit the trial Court passed an order on 24 -7 -90 for proceeding ex parte against the Defendants and fixed 11 -9 -90 for ex parte beating. On 11 -9 -90, the Plaintiffs examined Rajesh Kumar as PW 1 and closed their evidence. The trial court thereafter fixed 26 -9 -90 for ex parte arguments. The trial court ultimately appears to have decreed the suit in part granting the Plaintiffs a decree of prohibitory injunction only restraining the Defendants from evicting the Plaintiffs from the property in suit otherwise than in accordance with law and further restraining them from becoming Instrumental to the initiation of any eviction proceedings against them.

(3.) IT further appears that the Petitioners Initiated proceedings under Section 30 of the U P. Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking permission to deposit the rent in court for the period 1 -2 -90 to 31 -12 -92 and for future periods alleging that they had paid rent upto 31 -1 -90 but the landlord did not issue receipts and Rajendra Singh acting for and on behalf of the landlord had refused to receive the rent. It may be noticed that the Petitioners had never come up with the case that they had attempted to pay the rent to the landlord by money order which had been refused.