CHAUDHARAIN ALIAS SUNDAR DEVI Vs. MAHABIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in each of these two writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) is the tenant of an accommodation of which respondent no. 1 is the landlord. An application was made by respondent no. 1 under section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to file a suit for ejectment against the petitioners. THE application was dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer but Was allowed by the Commissioner. A representation was made by the tenants before the State Government under section 7-F. That representation too was dismissed. In the meantime the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, came into force and in place of filing a suit for ejectment against the petitioners an application was made under Section 21 (1) (a) of the new Act by respondent no. This application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. An appeal was filed by the petitioners. THE appeal having been dismissed, they have instituted these two writ petitions.

(2.) IT was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the requirements of Section 21 had not been fulfilled and consequently the Prescribed Authority and the Additional District Judge were not justified in granting the application made by respondent no. 1 under section 21. At this place it will be relevant to point out that the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge have taken the view that the findings recorded in the proceedings under section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act were conclusive in view of Rule 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. In this view of the matter they have not recorded any independent finding of their own. IT was urged by counsel for the petitioners that a perusal of the application made by respondent no. 1 under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, a copy of which has been filed along- with the writ petition as an annexure, would indicate that the application had been made only on the ground that the accommodation in question was in a dilapidated condition and it required reconstruction. According to the learned counsel under Rule 18 it was only the finding recorded in the earlier proceedings u/Sec. 3 which was conclusive and since the application for permission had been made on the ground that the accommodation required reconstruction after demolition the present application for release could not be treated as an application under Section 21(1) (a) and it was indeed an application under Section 21(1) (b) of the new Act.

(3.) IN the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed. IN the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs. The petitioner in each of these two writ petitions is granted one month's time to vacate the accommodation. Petition dismissed.