CHHAKKI LAL Vs. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MAINPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGEMENT Subhash Chandra, respondent No. 2, is the landlord of a shop. He made an application under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against Ugra Sen, respondent No. 3, for release of the aforesaid shop in his favour on the allegations that the shop in question was in dilapidated condition and also that he needed it bona fide for his own use. Ugra Sen, respondent No. 3, filed a written statement. His case was that he had vacated the shop in question and had no concern with it and that it was Chhakki Lal, the petitioner, who was the tenant of the shop. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 got the application under Section 21 amended. The plea introduced by the amendment application was that Ugra Sen had illegally sub-let the shop in question to Chhakki Lal the petitioner. A relief was also claimed for ejectment of the petitioner along with Ugra Sen the respondent No. 3. The petitioner asserted that he was himself the tenant and was not a sub-tenant. The prescribed Authority dismissed the application on the ground that on the allegation made therein as it stood after its amendment, it was not maintainable under Section 21 of the Act. Against that order, an appeal was filed by the respondent No. 2. It was heard by the Third Additional District Judge, Mainpuri. He came to the conclusion that irrespective of the allegation introduced in it by amendment the application was maintainable inasmuch as the real question which had to be decided by the Prescribed Authority was as to whether the need of respondent No. 2 was bona fide. He also held that the need of respondent No. 2 had to be compared with that of the tenant respondent No. 3. it is this order of the Additional District Judge which is sought to be quashed in the present writ Petition.

(2.) IT was urged by counsel for the petitioner that on the allegation that the petitioner was a sub-tenant the application filed by respondent No. 2 was not maintainable under Section 21. His only remedy was to file a suit under Section 20. I find myself unable to agree. Under Section 20 it is only if the case falls within one of the contingencies provided for in sub-section (2) thereof that a suit for eviction of a tenant can be instituted. One of the contingencies as contained in Clause (e) is that if the tenant has sub-let in contravention of the provisions of Section 25, or as the case may be, of the old Act the whole or any part of the building a suit for ejectment can be instituted against him. Section 21 on the other hand, contemplates an application by the landlord for release of the accommodation in his favour on the ground that it is required bona fide either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by him for occupation by himself or any member of his family. If ejectment of a sitting tenant is sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord a suit under Section 20 cannot be instituted. On the other hand, even if the landlord may not be in need of the accommodation, he can yet institute a suit for ejectment of the tenant under Section 20 if he has sub-let the accommodation as contemplated by clause (e) of sub-section (2) to that section. Even in a case of sub-letting as aforesaid I am of opinion that since no decree for ejectment of a tenant on the ground of the bona fide need of the landlord can be passed under Section 20 it would still be open to the landlord not to file a suit under Section 20 but to make an application under Section 21 provided up needs the accommodation bona fide for his own use. In such a case a decree under Section 20 would serve no purpose unless the landlord after getting the tenant evicted succeeds in getting the building released in his favour and for that he will again have to make an application for release, of course, in that event under Section 16 and not under Section 21 of the Act. If on the other hand, an order for release is passed under Section 21 on the ground that the accommodation is needed by the landlord bona fide such sub-tenant would automatically be ejected along with the tenant under Section 23 of the Act. In this way multiplicity of proceedings would be avoided.

(3.) IN my opinion, in proceedings under Section 23 for enforcement of an eviction order if any person other than the person against whom an order of eviction has been passed, claims to be in possession, the nature of his possession would have to be enquired into. If it is shown by such person that he is occupying the accommodation in his own right for instance as a tenant he cannot be evicted by enforcing an order to which he was not a party. On the other hand, if his possession is only on behalf of the tenant against whom the order for eviction has been passed for instance as a sub-tenant within the meaning of Section 25 (1) of the Act or as a licensee, such person can be evicted under Section 23 while enforcing the eviction order passed against the tenant. I wish to make it clear that I am not expressing any opinion in regard to a sub-tenant to whom sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act is applicable because in the instant case that question does not arise.