BRIJENDRA PRAKASH Vs. IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ETAWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has filed the present petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 2nd September, 1980 by virtue of which the Additional District Judge Etawah allowed the revision filed by Respondent No. 4 in the proceedings under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

(2.) THE dispute relates to premises No. 198 situate in Mohalla Katra Sahib Khan, district Etawah. The said premises was let out to Sri Anand Bux Singh who died on 7th August, 1976. Thereafter the Petitioner No. 1 made an application for allotment of the accommodation in question stating that after the death of the then tenant a vacancy has occurred. Petitioner No. 2 is the landlord of the accommodation. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer called for the report of the Inspector, who after inquiry submitted a report dated 15th May, 1978 showing the original tenant having died and the person in occupation is an unauthorised occupant of the premises in question. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after giving opportunity to the parties passed an order dated 9th November 1978 holding that after the death of the then tenant, a vacancy has occurred and he ordered for the notification of the vacancy under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Respondent No. 4 being aggrieved as against the said order filed a revision under Section 18 of the said Act. The revising authority allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The revisional court held now it is amply clear that under the Rent Control Act the proceedings of eviction can be possible against an unauthorised person who is an unauthorised person within the meaning of Section 12(1) to (4) and Section 13 and no other. So if a person who does come within the category of Section 12(1) he cannot be said as an unauthorised person to be evicted under this Act. In this case a declaration of deemed vacancy has been made against the revisionist and then it follows that this revisionist is an unauthorised person and he will be evicted, so the right of the revisionist has thus been effected by impugned order. The vacancy under Section 12 could not have been declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer." The Petitioner aggrieved as against this order has filed the present writ petition. The Petitioner has raised the preliminary ground that the revision filed by Respondent No. 4 was not maintainable and thus on this ground alone the revising order is liable to be quashed. For this purpose the Petitioner relied on the case of Major Baljeet Singh v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad, 1985 ARC 107. The observation made in that case is as under:

(3.) RULE 8 of the rules framed under the said Act provides a procedure for finding a vacancy. According to the said rule the District Magistrate shall, before passing the order of allotment or release which is alleged to be vacant under Section 12 or otherwise vacant or to be likely to fall vacant, get it inspected. Thereafter on the expiry of three days from the date of the report obtained or after the disposal of the objection, if any received, the District Magistrate is to consider the case and pass either an allotment or release order of the accommodation in question. Prior to the introduction of the provisions to Section 16(1) which is added by the U.P. Amendment Act No. 20 of 1976 similar question arose in the case of Trilok Singh and Co. v. District Magistrate Lucknow : AIR 1976 SC 1988 : 1976 AWC 610. The view taken in that case is as under: