ANIL KUMAR DIXIT Vs. MAYA TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the sitting tenant and is directed against order dated 6.10.2003, passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/A.C.M. (I), Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 24 of 2002, Pramod Kumar Tripathi v. Maya Tripathi. Through the said order shop in dispute situate in House No. 127/411B, Juhi, Baradevi Kanpur, has been declared to be vacant. Initially one Raman Singh was owner of the premises in dispute who sold the same through registered sale deed dated 3.9.2001 to Shrimati Maya Tripathi, respondent No. 1. Proceedings before Rent Control and Eviction Officer were initiated on the allotment application of respondent No. 2 Pramod Kumar Tripathi. In the allotment application it was stated that petitioner had been let out the shop in dispute in the year 1989 by the previous owner landlord without any allotment order, hence it was vacant. Allotment application was filed in the year 2002, i.e., after about 13 years from the date of letting out. Landlady respondent No. 1 supported the case of applicant for allotment.

(2.) Through the impugned order Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the shop was quite old and in the year 1988-89 also U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable. Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the shop in dispute to be vacant on the ground that it was let out in 1989 by the then landlord without allotment order.

(3.) The Supreme Court in Nootan Kumar v. A.D.J. AIR2002 SC 3456 , 2003 (1)AWC213 (SC), JT2002 (7)SC 481 , RLW2003 (1)SC 141 , 2002 (7)SCALE81 , (2002)8 SCC31 , has held that an agreement of letting is binding upon the parties, however, it is not binding upon Rent Control Authorities. The Supreme Court in JR. K. Parashar v. Dinesh Kumar 2000 (2) AWC 1478 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 1166, has held that if building is let out by the landlord after July, 1976, without allotment order, then it may be deemed to be vacant, however, it can be allotted to the sitting tenant.