RITA RUDRA Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.N. Bhalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Landlady petitioner filed release application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (U.P. Rent Control Act) against her previous tenant Smt. Bittha. Release application was rejected by Prescribed Authority. However, it was allowed in appeal by II A.D.J., Allahabad through judgment and order dated 17.2.1988 passed in Rent Appeal No. 8 of 1988. Thereafter petitioner got possession of the property in dispute. After the building is released under section 21 of the Act, there is absolutely no necessity of getting it further released under section 16(1)(b) of the Act. However, R.C. and E.O., Allahabad through order dated 11.10.1989 held that landlady shall file evidence that the person for whose need building was got released under section 21 of the Act had started residing therein. In my opinion R.C. and E.O. had got no jurisdiction to initiate the impugned proceedings on the application of one Smt. Usha Srivastava. In the said order it has been mentioned that on 5.8.1987 vacancy was declared. As building was released under section 21 of the Act in appeal after the declaration of vacancy, hence vacancy declaration order stood automatically rescinded after passing of the release order.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Suhail Ahmad v. Prescribed Authority, Meerut, 1984 (1) ARC 283 Wherein it has been held that this is settled law that after a building is released on an application for release under section 21(1) of the Act, the landlord is not called upon to obtain further order of release from R.C. and E.O. nor has the said officer any jurisdiction to allot the accommodation to any one else. Writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Order dated 11.10.1989 passed by R.C. and E.O., Allahabad in Smt. Usha Srivastava v. Rita Rudra Case No. 187 of 1989, is set aside. Order dated 5.8.1987 declaring vacancy is declared to be avoid.