BADSHAH ALI Vs. COMMISSIONER LUCKNOW DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Zulfikhar Hussain was the tenant of the accommodation in dispute. Fasih Uddin, respondent No. 3, the landlord applied for and obtained permission under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 for filing a suit for the ejectment of the tenant. The permission was granted on the ground that the need of the landlord for using the accommodation for his personal purposes was genuine. This permission was granted on 20th November, 1959. The landlord, however, did not file any suit; but it appears that after some years the tenant vacated the house whereafter Badshah Ali, the present appellant, came in possession of the house. He, on 15th July 1969, moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allotment of the house in question in his favour. He supplemented this application by another one filed on 5th August, 1969. In these proceedings the erstwhile tenant Zulfikhar Husain filed an application intimating that he vacated the premises in dispute in May, 1966. The landlords opposed the application for allotment. On 7th April, 1971 the Additional District Magistrate (Executive) rejected the application for allotment on the ground that since the need of the landlord for his personal use of the house in question was held to be genuine there was no case for allotment of the same in favour of the appellant.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY, the landlord moved an application under Section 7-A (1) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act for the eviction of Badshah Ali, the present appellant, from the disputed accommodation. The appellant filed objections which were upheld by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by an order dated 5-5-1972. The landlord went up in revision. The Commissioner acting under Section 7-A (4) of the Act allowed the revision and directed the eviction of the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant came to this Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE third point urged by learned counsel was that the order passed by the Commissioner could not be enforced under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Section 43 of this Act lays down the repeals and savings. Clause (t) of sub-section (2) of Section 43 provides that- "any decision of the District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority, the District Judge, the Commissioner or the State Government under the foregoing clauses may be enforced, whenever necessary, in like manner as if it were an order of the competent authority under the corresponding provisions of this Act."