ZILA BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI, ALLAHABAD Vs. GAYATRI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) House No. 54, Hewett Road, Allahabad belongs to Chandramani Chaubey, father of respondent No. 1. The said premises was let at to the Municipal Board, Allahabad in the year 1943. The Municipal Board, Allahabad was runining a primary school in the said premises. Subsequently the status of the Municipal Board was raised to that of a Corporation or Nagar Mahapalika. Since then the primary school was being managed, administered and controlled by the Nagar Mahapalika. It appears that by U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, the management and control of the Nagar Palikas of the local bodies over the primary schools were taken over by the U.P. Board of Basic Education. As a result of the enforcement of the aforesaid Act, the management and control of the primary school which was being run in the premises in question was also taken over by the U.P. Basic Eduction Board.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 filed application on Sept. 23, 1970 under Sec. 16 for the release of the said building on the ground that as the Nagar Mahapalika, which was his tenant, had unauthorisedly permitted the building to be occupied by the U.P. Board of Basic Education, the building would be deemed be vacant under Sec. 12 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and was thus open for being proceeded with under Sec. 16 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.

(3.) The application was resisted by the U.P. Basic Education Board on the ground that the application filed by the respondent No. 1 was mis-conceived inasmuch as Sec. 12 did not apply to the present case. The Board alleged that by the enforcement of U. P. Basic Education Act, the Board had entered into the shoes of Nagar Mahapalika, therefore, the possession of the said Board for all intents and purposes was in place of the Nagar Mahapalika. On that grounds the Board alleged that the building could not be deemed to be vacant for the purposes of Sec. 12. The contention raised on behalf of U.P. Basic Education Board was controverted by the respondent on the ground that the Nagar Mahapalika having itself admitted that it had ceased to be a tenants of the premises in question, there was no occasion for the Board to assert that it was occupying the premises in possession of the Nagar Mahapalika.