RANJIT SINGH Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the sitting tenant against allotment order in favour of respondent No. 3, Rajendra Prasad. Petitioner was sitting tenant without allotment order hence vacancy was declared by R.C. and E.O./D.S.O., Saharanpur on 1.4.1982 in case No. 16 of 1982. Vacancy was declared on the ground that landlord respondent No. 4 gave the building on rent to the petitioner without allotment order. Landlord respondent No. 4 gave his consent for allotment of the house in dispute in favour of the petitioner. Before R.C. and E.O. only two applicants for allotment i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 3 pursued their applications. The other applicants stop attending the case after filing of the applications. R.C. and E.O. preferred respondent No. 3 for allotment over the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was unauthorized occupant having been let in as tenant without allotment order. This point is now concluded by an authority of Supreme Court reported in : AIR 2000 SC 1168 wherein it has been held that a tenant with the consent of the landlord and without allotment order can be allotted a building. R.C. and E.O. also accused the petitioner for concealing the fact regarding rate of rent, which he was paying. R.C. and E.O. held that in violation of section 4 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, he must be paying higher rent to the landlord. I completely fail to understand or appreciate this line of argument. In section 4 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, only premium is prohibited and not good rent. Landlord and tenant may agree to any rent. If the landlord insists and tenant agrees to pay good rent then there is nothing wrong. The observation of R.C. and E.O. that petitioner did not state that since when he was tenant and he also did not filed any rent receipt. In my opinion these things were wholly unnecessary. After disqualifying the petitioner, R.C. and E.O. held that respondent No. 3 was the only surviving applicant for allotment hence building was allotted to him through judgment and order dated 14.6.1982. Petitioner filed a revision against the said order being Rent Control Revision No. 340 of 1982. A.D.J./Special Judge, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 18.1.1983, dismissed both the revisions. The other revision was filed by the landlord. Against rejection of his revision, landlord also filed a writ petition being writ petition No. 1387 of 1983. The said writ petition has been dismissed for non -prosecution on 19.4.2004. In the instant writ petition, tenant petitioner has challenged the allotment order in favour of respondent No. 3 and order of Revisional Court dismissing the petitioner's revision directed against the said allotment order. Revisional Court also held the possession of the petitioner illegal on the ground that landlord let out the building without allotment order.

(2.) IN my opinion judgments and orders passed by R.C. and E.O. and Revisional Court are quite erroneous in law. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court authority there is no bar against allotment of the building to the petitioner. Landlord had also consented and requested for allotment in favour of the petitioner. Even if recommendation of landlord in the instant case may not fail under section 17 of the Act still that should be taken as one of the factors for allotting the building in dispute. Petitioner is continuing in possession by virtue of stay order dated 14.2.1983. After twenty years it would not be appropriate to send the matter back to R.C. and E.O. for consideration of allotment applications of the petitioner and respondent No. 3. No one has appeared for respondent No. 3. During the period of more than two decades, which has elapsed since filing of the application for allotment till today, respondent No. 3 must have arranged some other house.