SIA RAM Vs. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MAINPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. This writ petition arises out of allotment proceedings under Section 12/16 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Respondent No. 3, real brother of petitioner filed an application for allotment stating therein that initially petitioner was tenant of the shop in dispute but later on he vacated it hence it was vacant and it should be allotted to him. Respondent No. 4 Kayastha Sabha, Mainpuri is owner of the shop in dispute and respondent No. 5 is Secretary of the said Sabha.

(2.) INITIALLY R. C. and E. O. by order dated 22-9-1977, allotted the shop in dispute in favour of Radhey Shyam respondent No. 3. Petitioner filed review application, which was rejected on 23-11-1977. Petitioner filed a revision being Civil Revision No. 87 of 1977. District Judge, Mainpuri held that no notice of vacancy was given to the petitioner, provisions of Rule 8 were not complied with and report of Rent Control Inspector was not pasted on the notice board. Ultimately the District Judge remanded the matter to R. C. and E. O. for determining the question of vacancy afresh after providing opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. After remand R. C. and E. O. by order dated 20-11-1978, held that there was no vacancy and petitioner was continuing as tenant of the shop in dispute This order was again set-aside in revision and the matter was again remanded. R. C. and E. O. after remand, again by order dated 7-8-1979, held that there was no vacancy. This order was also challenged in revision. The revision was again allowed on 19-7-1980 and the matter was again remanded. After remand, notice was sent to the landlord. Landlord through its Secretary, filed affidavit dated 6-11-1980. Petitioner filed counter affidavit on 15-1-1981.

(3.) AS far as the stand taken by the landlord is concerned it cannot be justified. No positive finding has been recorded either by R. C. and E. O. or by Revisional Court that petitioner willingly handed over possession of the shop in dispute to the landlord and thereafter it was let out by the landlord to respondent No. 3 and possession was delivered by landlord to respondent No. 3. Mere non-payment of rent and termination of tenancy does not give right to landlord to let out the shop to any other person. A lessor even after termination of tenancy cannot take forcible possession. The only course legally open to him is to obtain possession through decree of ejectment.