RAM KRISHNA MISHRA Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are landlords. Property in dispute is a room facing road, situate in Kanpur from where tenants also carried on the business of money lending. The rate of rent is Rs. 17.50. Initially one Harendra Kumar Basu was the tenant, against whom landlords filed release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as Rent Case No. 663 of 1977 and at the relevant time it was pending before Prescribed Authority/Additional Munsif -XVI, Kanpur. During pendency of the release application Harendra Kumar Basu (H.K. Basu) died on 20 -1 -1981. Landlords petitioners applied for substitution of heirs/legal representatives of H.K. Basu which was allowed. On 16 -10 -1981 Ravindra Nath Singh (R.N. Singh) respondent No. 6 and Devendra Nath Singh (D.N. Singh) respondent No. 7 filed application before Prescribed Authority that original tenant H.K. Basu had executed a will in respect of the tenancy of the disputed room and they were living with the deceased tenant, therefore, they became tenants after the death of H.K. Basu, hence they must be substituted at the place of H.K. Basu. Landlords petitioners filed their objections against the application of R.N. Singh and D.N. Singh alongwith declaration signed by the heirs and legal representatives of H.K. Basu to the effect that they were not interested in retaining the house. The prescribed authority on 10 -2 -1982 allowed the impleadment of R.N. Singh and D.N. Singh. This writ petition is directed against the said order of the Prescribed Authority.

(2.) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in respect of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (U.P. Rent Regulation Act) that tenancy cannot be bequeathed through Will vide AIR 1984 SC 1880, Jaspal Singh v. ADJ. The Prescribed authority through the impugned order rightly held that tenant could not execute the Will in respect of tenancy. However, the prescribed Authority held that R.N. Singh and D.N. Singh had filed some documentary evidence to show that they were residing in the house alongwith the tenant and they were carrying on the business from the said house. The Prescribed Authority further held that as no objection was raised by the landlord in respect of residence of these persons alongwith tenant in the tenanted accommodation hence, it could be presumed that landlord had impliedly consented for their occupation. Prescribed Authority, thereafter, granted benefit of Section 14 of the Act to R.N. Singh and D.N. Singh. Section 14 of the Act deals with regularization of tenancy if it has been created by the landlord before 1976 without allotment order.

(3.) WRIT petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 10 - 2 -1982 is set aside.