GIRISH DUTT CHANDOLA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MERRUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the transactions giving rise to these peti tions are closely connected with each other, it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. Facts giving rise to the two petitions briefly stated are that house No. 937 P.L. Sharma Road, Begum Bagh, Meerut, is owned by Harish Chandra Goel (petitioner in writ petition No. 136 of 1977). On August 8, 1974 Sri Girish Dutt Chandola (Petitioner in writ peti tion No. 995 of 1976) obtained an allotment order under the provi sions of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the aforesaid house and took its possession on August 15, 1974. Being aggrieved by the said order, Harish Chandra Goel went up in appeal before the District Judge, Meerut. The District Judge, vide his or der dated April 29, 1976, allowed the appeal and set aside the allot ment order. Girish Dutta Chandola filed writ petition No. 995 of 1976 and questioned the validity of District Judges order dated April 28, 1976. In the mean time, Harish Chandra Goel filed an ap plication under Section 18(3) of the Act, claiming that as the allot ment order stood rescanned, the Prescribed authority should take steps to get the possession of the accommodation in question to be delivered to him. Girish Dutt Chandola objected to the prayer made by Harish Chandra Goel. H filed a certified copy of a judgment of the Additional District Judge dated October 21, 1976, wherein in a dispute between Harish Chandra Goel and an earlier tenant viz. T.R. Grover, it had been held that as less than ten years had elapsed since the construction of the accommodation in question, the provi sions contained in the Act did not apply to it and the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to fix its rent, According to Shri Girish Dutt Chandola, in the circumstances, as provided in Section 2 (2) of the Act, nothing contained in the Act including the provisions of Section 18(3), was applicable to the accommodation in question. The District Magistrate therefore, had no power to act under Section 13(3) of the Act and to deliver possession of the accommodation in question to Sri Harish Chandra Goel. This plea found favour with the District Magistrate and he held that as the builidiing had been constructed within 10 years, he had no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under Section 18 (3) in respect thereof. Accordingly, he dismissed Sri Goal's application vide his order dated July 26, 1976. Sri Gael then filed writ petition No. 136 of 1977 before this Court and contended that whether or not the provisions of Section 18(3) were applicable to the facts of the case, the authorities under the Act were under an obligation to put the petitioner back into occupation of the accommodation in question after the allotment order in favour of Sri Chandola had been cancelled. So far as the prayer made by Sri Chandola, in writ petition No. 996 of 1976, in respect of the order dated April 29, 1976, cancelling the allotment made in his favour, is concerned, it appears that in subsequent proceedings Sri Chandola himself had been taking up the stand that period of ten years had not elapsed since the construc tion of the accommodation in question. Accordingly, as provided in Section 2(2) of the Act, its provision regarding allotment of the ac commodation could also not have been invoked in relation to the ac commodation in question and its initial allotment in favour of Chan dola was illegal. Since Sri Chandola had no right to an allotment order being passed in his favour, he cannot claim any relief against the order cancelling the same. Coming now to writ petition No. 136 of 1977. We find that even if for argument's sake it be assumed that provisions contained; in Section 18(3) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Bent and Eviction) Act, 1972 could not have been invoked in the instant case, there be no manner of doubt that possession of the accommodation in question had been handed over to Sri Chandola on the basis of an illegal allotment order which has since been set aside. In the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 also, there was no specific provision for restoring possession of an accommodation to the person who had been dispossessed under if an allotment order, purporting to have been made under that Act, after the same was set aside. Relying upon general principles, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Ram Niwas Pushkar Dutt through Pushkar Dutt v. Nanku Ram and others A.I.R. 1955 SC 309 observed thus: "The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no provision of law under which the petitioner could be eject ed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer while alloting the accommodation to the petitioner acted as a quasi-judicial body. That order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was held to be without jurisdiction and the order was quashed by this Court, AS the order in pur suance of the execution of which the petitioner was put in pos session of the premises by ejecting the opposite party No. 1 was the order which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to pass, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has the inherent jurisdiction, being a quasi judicial tribunal, to res tore possession to respondent No. 1, by ejecting the petitioner in order to set right the wrong that had been done in passing that illegal order and which had been found to have been passed without jurisdiction by this Court." Applying the same principle, with which we fully agree, to the proceedings taken under the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, it is evident that even if Section 18 (3) had not been where, the authorities under the Act would have ample jurisdiction to restore possession of the property, if ultimate ly it is found that the allotment order, on the basis of, which pos session was taken, was an order made without jurisdiction. In our opinion the District Supply Officer exercising the powers of the District Magistrate under the Act, was in error when he held that he had no jurisdiction to restore possession of the property to Harish Chandra Goel after the allotment order in favour of Girish Dutta Chandola had been set aside on the ground that the same had been made without jurisdiction. In the result writ petition No. 995 of 1976 fails and is dismissed' with costs. Writ petition No. 136 of 1977 is allowed with costs. The District Supply Officer enjoying the delegated authority of the Dis trict Magistrate is directed to take immediate steps to restore pos session of the accommodation in dispute to Harish Chandra Goel.