TALIB HUSAIN Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NAINITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned single Judge finding that there was a conflict of opinion between various decisions of this Court rendered by Division Benches and single Judges referred the following question for consideration by a larger Bench :

(2.) This Bench has been constituted for resolving the above controversy. Since only a specific question has been referred to us we do not consider it necessary to set out the facts of this case in detail. We will, however, mention the relevant facts as briefly as possible with a view to indicating the circumstances in which the question has arisen in the instant case. The dispute relates to the second storey of a building situate at Haldwani. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the landlords of that building which was in the tenancy of one Mohd. Siddique who vacated the same somewhere in 1979. It is alleged by the landlords that on Mohd. Siddique's vacating the accommodation the petitioner unlawfully and forcibly occupied the same. On July 12, 1979 the father of the present landlords applied for the release of this accommodation under S.16(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rents and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) on the ground that he was an old man suffering from several diseases and on account of want of accommodation he was residing at Kaladhangi, a small village, where proper medical treatment was not possible. Consequently he wanted to shift to Haldwani to settle his son, the present respondent No. 4, in some business as well as for his medical treatment. After due enquiry the accommodation was declared vacant under the aforesaid Act on July 9, 1979. It appears that the petitioners applied for allotment of the accommodation and also claimed that they were lawful tenants of the disputed accommodation. They also contested the landlords' application for release. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated April 14, 1981 after considering the evidence of both the parties, held that the need of the landlord was genuine and he bona fide required the accommodation for his own personal use and occupation. The release application was consequently allowed. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged that order by way of a revision under S.18 of the Act which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nainital by an order dated July 2, 1972 affirming the findings of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Thereafter the petitioner filed this petition.

(3.) One of the points raised by the petitioners is that being prospective allottees they have a right to contest the landlord's release application and the opinion of the Courts below that as prospective allottees the petitioners do not have any locus standi is not correct.