E E DAYAL Vs. PHOOL MANI DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the tenant against an order dated 28th April 1975 passed by I Additional District Judge, Allahabad allowing an application under section 21 of U. P. Act XIV of 1972. The application was filed by respondent on the ground that she was the owner and landlady of quarter No. 22 in No. 8-A, Divinity Compound, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad. It was alleged that her husband is employed as Telegraph In- charge, Northern Railway, Prayag, Allahabad. He has completed the age of 54 years and was due to retire sometime in November 1973. In these circumstances it was alleged that the need of the respondent was pressing, genuine and bonafide and the accommodation which is in possession of the petitioner may be released. THIS application was contested and one of the grounds alleged was that the respondent was neither the owner nor the landlady of the premises in dispute.

(2.) THE prescribed authority rejected the application of the respondent mainly on the ground that she was not the landlady and no right or title passed to her on the basis of a letter written by the Lucknow Diocesan Trust Allahabad dated 9th August 1963 filed as Annexure III to the counter affidavit. THE respondent filed an appeal and the Additional District Judge was of the opinion that the letter dated 9th August 1963 was admittedly issued by the Trust which was the landlord and as it indicated that the respondent had paid for the building in question and so she was authorised to realise the rent. From this coupled with the fact that the petitioner started paying rent to the respondent he inferred that the respondent became the landlady and was entitled to file an application under section 21.

(3.) MR. K. M. Dayal appearing for the respondent has placed reliance on the following observations of a decision reported in S.M.G. Chetty v. Ganeshan, AIR 1975 SC 1750 at page 1752 ; "On the other hand, the Act with which we are concerned is a self-contained and complete code for regulation of the rights between landlord and tenants as defined in the Act- See M/s. Ravel & Co. v. K. G. Ramachandran, AIR 1974 SC 818. Thus a controversy that may arise between a landlord and others, who are not his tenants under the Act is, outside the ken of this Act. Even a possible dispute, imaginary or real, between the landlord and the remaindermen cannot effect adjudication of the claim of the landlord against his tenants under the provisions of the Act. It will also not effect the efficacy of the nature of the plea of bona fide on the part of the landlord, if otherwise so. Such questions as are raised in this appeal by the tenants are therefore irrelevant in a litigation between the landlord and tenants when a suit for eviction is instituted by the former on any of the grounds available to him under the Act. It is clear that when the objection on the score of the landlord being a holder of life interest and hence incapable of invoking section 14(1) (b) fails the suit must be decreed."