RAMESHWAR SINGH Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No, 1 is landlord of the property which is in the form of Atta (first floor accommodation) consisting of two portions, northern and southern of House No. 220, situate in Mohalla Shah Qamar, Etawah. Northern portion is in dispute. Admittedly the portion situate towards south was in possession of the father of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as tenant since before start of dispute in respect of northern Atta. Petitioner No. 2 Jagat Narain filed allotment application before Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Etawah in respect of northern Atta. R.C. and E.O. held that southern portion was in tenancy of Babu Ram, father of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Ramesh Chandra and Mahesh Chandra. R.C. and E.O. further held that relations between the parties were not cordial and litigation had taken place between the parties previously also. The previous tenant of the northern Atta in dispute Krishna Kumar stated that he was tenant thereof and he vacated the same on 30.5.1977. Both the landlord as well as the outgoing tenant intimated the vacancy to R.C. and E.O. The building in dispute was inspected on 3.6.1977. Rent Control Inspector found respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to be in possession of the property in dispute. On 10.2.77, the landlord had also lodged F.I.R. against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had asserted before the R.C.I, that they were in possession of the northern Atta in dispute since 1968 or 1969. This version was not believed by the R.C. and E.O. However respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed receipt showing payment of house tax [vide receipt No. 32 dated 21.11.1974) in respect of the premises in dispute (on the northern side). On the basis of that receipt alone R.C. and E.O. by order dated 3.4.1979 held that there was no vacancy and the opposite parties (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as Smt. Naseem (previous occupant) vacated the Atta in dispute prior to 10.2.1977 the date of F.I.R. and opposite parties (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) took its possession on her vacation. R.C. and E.O. further held that no report of forcible possession was ever made, and house tax receipt established that the opposite parties paid tax for both the Attas (Atta in dispute and southern Atta). Southern Atta was admittedly in tenancy occupation of father of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) Against the order dated 30.4.1979, two revisions were filed. Civil Revision No. 107 of 1979 was filed by petitioner No. 2 and Civil Revision No. 113 of 1979 by petitioner No. 1. District Judge, Etawah, through judgment and order dated 2.3.1983, held that the revisions, against order refusing declaration of vacancy by R.C. and E.O., were not maintainable. As such he dismissed both the revisions as not maintainable. Through this writ petition, the revisional court's order dated 2.3.1983 as well as the order passed by the R.C. and E.O. dated 30.4.1979 have been challenged.

(3.) R.C. and E.O. in his judgment observed that the occupation of the opposite parties of northern Atta undoubtedly was unauthorized because they occupied without any allotment order in their favour and without the consent of the landlord. R.C. and E.O. also held that even though Krishna Kumar, previous tenant was keeping prostitute of the name of Smt. Naseema in the Atta in dispute, however the said Atta was vacated prior to 1977 while the application for allotment was filed before the R.C. and E.O. on 30.5.1977. It was also held that Krishna Kumar had colluded with the landlord.