VED PRAKASH Vs. IST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant of a shop owned by the landlady opposite party No. 3 which was let out to him in the year 1975 at a monthly rental of Rs. 175. THE landlady moved an application for release of the said shop in her favour under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) on the ground that her three young sons are unemployed, therefore, she required the tenanted shop to be released in her favour so that she could settle at least her eldest son Satya Prakash in some business. This application was resisted by the tenant on various grounds. Learned Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties allowed the application vide its judgment and order dated 10.2.1994 releasing the building/shop in favour of the landlady finding her need to be greater and bona fide. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant preferred an appeal before the First Additional District Judge, Faizabad. THE appeal was rejected vide judgment and order dated 19.10.1995 thereby affirming the findings of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority. THE present writ petition is directed against both these judgments.

(2.) SRI H. S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that since the findings of fact that the need of the landlady is greater and bona fide and that the application under Section 21 (1) (a) is maintainable under Section 2 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are concurrent, he does not challenge the same. SRI H. S. Sahai, however, raised a new point contending that the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Rent Act were not maintainable right from the inception for the reason that no allotment order allotting the premises in question was ever passed under Section 16 of the said Act. Hence, according to him, both the judgments passed by the Courts below are illegal and a nullity in the eyes of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a recent decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Nutan Kumar v. Additional District Judge, 1993 (2) AWC 1090. SRI S. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent refuted the aforesaid contention on two grounds ; firstly, that the said question was since not raised before the Courts below, hence petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same at this stage and secondly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Full Bench decision referred by SRI Sahai is not applicable, as the occupation of the disputed premises by the tenant stood regularised under Section 14 of the U. P. Rent Act being that of prior to 5.7.1976 and, therefore, the question of any allotment with respect to the premises in question is wholly irrelevant. SRI S. K. Mehrotra for this purpose placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaspal Singh, v. Additional District Judge. Bulandshahr, 1984 (4) SCC 434.

(3.) I have perused the Full Bench decision and have heard the learned counsel for the respondents, who submitted that the ratio of the decision of the Full Bench is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. The question whether a tenancy in the absence of an allotment order would be unauthorised or not does not arise in cases where Section 14 comes into play because by virtue of this section, where the tenant is in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord/landlady immediately before the commencement of the new Act or the amending Act, he would be deemed to be an authorised tenant of the said building. The unamended Section 14 as it stood originally in U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 reads as follows :