SYED MOHD IDRIS Vs. FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been directed by Syed Mohd. Idris challenging the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow, dated 13-3-1973 contained in Annexure-3 and the order dated 21-3-1975 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Lucknow, contained in Annexure-4.

(2.) IN brief the facts are that house No. 6 situated in Mohalla Chirendhapurwa near Baisi Ki Masjid, Lucknow, of which the petitioner is the tenant was formerly owned by one Smt. Nasim Bano and her husband Shri Zahoor Ahmad (hereinafter to be referred as the original landlord). The original landlord obtained a permission under S.3 of the old U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. Act III of 1947) for permission to file a suit for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that they were not keeping good health and have been medically advised to shift in the upper storey which was in the occupation of the petitioner. The permission was granted to them and in pursuance of the same a regular suit No. 10 of 1966 was filed for ejectment of the petitioner. The suit was contested and ultimately was dismissed on 11-12-1967 on the ground that the notice to quit was not served on the petitioner. No steps thereafter were taken by the original landlord and the petitioner continued to be his tenant and was regularly paying the rent of the premises in dispute. This disputed house was subsequently sold to opposite party No. 3 Syed Ahmad Hussain by a sale deed dated 27-1-1969. Opposite party No. 3 after purchasing the house also accepted the rent from the petitioner and he continued to be his tenant in the disputed house. On 25-3-1970 a notice was sent by opposite party No. 3 terminating the tenancy of the petitioner and this notice was served on 6-4-1970. It is not disputed that this notice terminating the tenancy of the petitioner was in pursuance of the permission granted under S.3 of the old Act to the original landlord. Opposite party No. 3 Syed Ahmad Husain thereafter filed a fresh suit in May 1970 which was registered as regular suit No. 384 of 1970. During the pendency of the said suit in the State of Uttar Pradesh the old U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act was replaced by the new Act known as U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (Act XIII of 1972). IN view of the provisions of this new Act the suit was transferred to the court of Judge, Small Cause Court who after framing of the issue vide his order dated 13-3-1973 decreed the suit. This order is Annexure-3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order preferred a revision before the District Judge. IN this revision an application was moved by the petitioner seeking amendment of the written statement which was allowed but since the stay originally granted was vacated during the pendency of the civil revision the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 1394 of 1974. The writ petition was admitted and it was ordered that the petitioner will not be ejected but, however, the proceedings in the revision were not stayed, hence opposite party No. 1 decided the revision filed by the petitioner vide order dated 21-3-1975 dismissing the civil revision filed by the petitioner. This order is Annexure-4. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has now come up before this court impugning the orders passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court and the Ist Additional District Judge. The petition has been contested on behalf of opposite party No. 3 Syed Ahmad Husain, the new landlord and a counter- affidavit has been filed. It is asserted that the impugned orders are legal, just and proper and call for no interference by this Court as the orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity.

(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by Sri Shukla but I am constrained to observe that I do not find myself in agreement. It may be mentioned that the definition of 'landlord' as mentioned in the Act is only for the purposes of collection of rent and it may be pointed out that the inclusion of the words "agent, attorney, heir or assignee" is very significant. The inclusion of any one of them within the definition of 'landlord' could be either by operation of law or by means of an execution of a deed. The case of heir of a landlord in the circumstances would stand on altogether a different footing because soon after the death of the landlord the legal 'heirs' step into the shoes of the landlord by operation of law while on the other hand the case of an agent or an assignee would stand on a different footing. It is to be shown by these people how they are entitled to be landlord; whether by operation of law or by execution of deed. It may be mentioned that the original sale deed executed in favour of opposite party No. 3 has not been brought on record, nor is there any document to show that the permission granted under S.3 of the Act was passed on to be utilised by opposite party No. 3. The owner of any accommodation is actually the person in law who is entitled to receive rent of the accommodation. It is not necessary that every landlord be owner of the house. Likewise it is also clear that it is not necessary that every owner of the accommodation be a landlord as per definition of S.2 (c) of the Act. That being so, in my opinion the contention of the learned counsel that the word 'assignee' included the transferee as per definition of 'landlord' defined in S.2 (c) of the Act, holds no ground.