LAL BEHARI AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAL Behari and Sheo Kumar accused have been convicted under Section 7(1)(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of rent and Eviction Act, 1947 read with para 23 A and B of the Local Orders inasmuch as Lal Behari accused is said to have not given any information of the vacation of house No. 189 situate in mohalla Atal Behari Nagar in the city of Unnao to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and let it out to Sheo Kumar accused without any proper allotment order, and that Sheo Kumar accused occupied the house without any allotment.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that the said house fell vacant, Lal Behari accused was managing on behalf of the owner and he let it out to Sheo Kumar without giving any information though the house had fallen vacant.

(3.) NO evidence on behalf of the prosecution was led as to when this house was vacated and who had been occupying it. The prosecution produced three witnesses. Sri Wasi Hyder Zaidi (P.W. 1) admitted in his cross examination that the house was not let out to any body in his presence and that he had no personal knowledge about the house being let out. Laxmi Narain (P.W. 2) and Sri Wasi Hyder Zaidi (P.W. 1) both admitted that Lal Behari was not the owner of the house and that he was only occupying it on behalf of his master and was only managing the affairs. Laxmi Narain further admitted that he had no knowledge whether any rent was being paid by Sheo Kumar or not. In his cross -examination he said, that he had heard that he paid Rs. 5 as rent but he admitted that he had no personal knowledge of it. Ganga Prasad (P.W. 3) stated that he did not know in whose house Sheo Kumar lived and he also did not know whether any person lives in the upper portion of the house of Lal Behari. This is the entire evidence on record. On this evidence the prosecution has entirely failed to prove that there was any vacation and that there was any occupation of any portion of the house without an allotment order. The learned Sessions Judge relied on a reply which was filed by Lal Behari from which the facts, as given above, were taken. He was of opinion that after the termination of the rationing the house should have been surrendered to the Rent Control and Eviction Office as it was no longer required for storing grain and, therefore, it had fallen vacant and the accused should be deemed to have committed an offence.