KRIPA RAM Vs. V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREMISES nos. 21, 22 and 23 situated in mohalla Kan-ungoyan, Meerut belonged to one Kam-eshwar Dayal. He had let out the houses numbered 22 and 23 to Manohar Lal. He had sub-let the house no. 23 to Kripa Ram, the petitioner. On 14-2-1974 Kameshwar Dayal sold the aforesaid premises to Rameshwar Dayal. Before this purchase Manohar Lal had died on 28-1-1974, leaving behind his daughter. As she was a married daughter she had neither any right to the tenancy left by her father Manohar nor did she claim any right.

(2.) UPON the death of Manohar Lal, Rameshwar Dayal filed an application for the release of premises No. 22 and 23 under sec. 16 of the U.P. (Regulation of Buildings Operation) Act (briefly stated as the New Act) on the ground that as the sole tenant was dead, those houses were open to release. During the pendency of this application the petitioner also filed an application for the allotment of these premises in his favour. Kriparam, the petitioner was admittedly in possession of portion no. 23. But the Prescribed Authority without issuing any notice to him released the same in favour of landlord. Consequently the application made by the petitioner for allotment was also rejected. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for review under 16 (5) of the New Act, on the ground that the release order, having been obtained on misrepresentation and without disclosing all the relevant facts, was liable to be recalled. The application was resisted by Kameshwar Dayal. He admitted that the petitioner was a sub-tenant of house no. 23 but claimed that with the death of Manohar Lal the tenant-in-chief, the petitioner's right, if any, were extinguished and therefore possession of the petitioner being otherwise than allotment or release should be deemed to be unauthorised. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer accepted the case of Rameshwar Dayal and rejected the application for review filed by Kripa Ram. Kripa Ram preferred an appeal before the District Judge under section 18 of the New Act. The appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 6-7-1973. Kripa Ram has filed the present writ petition against the aforesaid judgment of the authorities named above in this court.

(3.) IT is indisputable that in the instant case we are concerned only with whether the occupation of Kripa 'Ram, the petitioner, became unauthorised on death of Manohar Lal ? The submission made on his behalf was that as the right of Kripa Ram to retain the possession of premises no. 23 extinguished with the death of Manohar Lal, there fore, he must be deemed to be an unauthorised occupant of the house after 28th of January, 1974. On this assertion the counsel for the respondent no.3 claimed that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rightly found that the premises no. 23 was vacant and open to release.