MAHIPAL VERMA Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is not in dispute that petitioner's application for allotment of shops No. 13/807/9 and 13/366/4 (New Number 13/500) situated in Mohalla Sheikh Farookh, Saharanpur, has been rejected by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Saharanpur (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") by impugned order dated 6.3.2010 on the ground that these shops are new constructions and by virtue of second proviso to section 2(2) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972")/construction having been raised in 1991, are not within the ambit of Act, 1972 therefore, application for allotment before RCEO itself is not maintainable and shops cannot be allotted by applying power under Act, 1972 on account of the fact that shops are outside the purview of the said Act.

(2.) On the merits of the question that shops are not new and within the ambit of Act, 1972, no argument could be advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and he could not show that the findings recorded by RCEO are perverse or incorrect. He, however, said that there is a settlement made by landlord in another matter relating to some other shops, which came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 27260 of 2008 stating that tenants may seek allotment of shops in disputed in the present case. It is also true that Writ Petition No. 27260 of 2008 has been dismissed by this Court but it is said that landlord has already made statement therein that shop in question is liable to be allotted to the petitioner under Act, 1972.

(3.) The submission is thoroughly misconceived. Once a statute itself is not applicable upon a subject-matter, even by consent of the parties, jurisdiction cannot be conferred.