SATYA NARAIN Vs. ROSHAN LAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The petitioner aggrieved by an order passed by the Revisional Court dated 27th November, 2003 whereby the Revisional Court allowed the revision filed by Roshan Lal Agrawal (respondent No. 1 in the writ petition) against the order dated 11th June, 1986, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the review application filed by Roshan Lal under section 16(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act') was rejected.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that Sohan Lal Agrawal (respondent No. 2 in the writ petition) and outgoing tenant Ram Narain Gupta informed Rent Control and Eviction Officer that there is a vacancy in the accommodation in dispute. Pursuant to this information, the petitioner filed an application for allotment of the aforesaid accommodation as contemplated under section 16(1)(a) of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after receiving the report from Rent Control Inspector notified the vacancy on 22.2.1986 and by the order dated 26.2.1986 allotted the accommodation in dispute to Satya Narain. Petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid allotment order dated 26th February, 1986 entered into possession and started paying rent to Sohan Lal. Thereafter, Roshan Lal (respondent No. 1 in the writ petition) filed an application under section 16(5) of the Act for review of the order dated 26th February, 1986 on the ground that is the co -owner of the property in dispute and he has not been informed before passing of the impugned order of allotment dated 26th February, 1986. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application filed by Roshan Lal holding that the landlord, Sohan Lal himself has informed the vacancy and further that the notice was issued to Sohan Lal who has filed his affidavit before passing the allotment order. The authority has further held that according to the definition given in section 3(j) of the Act the landlord is a person to whom rent is payable and since the petitioner is paying rent to Sohan Lal and this has never been objected by Roshan Lal nor he has ever informed the petitioner that he is the co -owner of the building, therefore, he should also be paid rent. In this view of the matter, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has rejected the application filed by Roshan Lal filed under section 16(5) of the Act.

(3.) ON the contrary, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that it is not disputed that Roshan Lal is a co -owner of the building in dispute but it is only by a partition decree subsequent to passing of the order dated 26th February, 1986 that Roshan Lal has now become absolute owner in possession of the building in question. Therefore, the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and referred to the Revisional Court cannot be said to be suffering from any error. He submits that the view of the Revisional Court cannot be said to be perverse, so as to warrant any interference by exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, Counsel has submitted that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon decision in Madhu Gopal v. VIth Additional District Judge, Agra and others, 1988 (2) ARC 1, under section 16(5), which lays down that even a landlord who is not in actual physical possession of the building in dispute, can file an application under section 16(5) saying that he is a lawful occupant of the building. The Counsel further submits that according to the law laid down in the aforesaid Madhu Copal's case (supra), once the Court comes to the conclusion that Rule 10(9) have been complied with, the order does not suffer from any error. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in Kunwar Gulab Singh v. Zila Purti Adhikari and others, 1981 ARC 43, wherein it has been held that for the purposes of proceeding under section 16 to see as to which of the contesting parties are the landlord the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has looked into the definition of 'landlord' and further as to whom the rent is payable and who is actually receiving the rent. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer therefore has not committed any error in law. In my opinion, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not committed error, which is manifest on the face of record, particularly in view of definition of the 'Landlord' and the view taken to the contrary by the Revisional Court deserves to be set aside. In view of what has been stated above, in my opinion, the order passed by the Revisional Court deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 11th June, 1986 passed by revisional authority is quashed.