KRISHAN KUMAR AHLUWALIA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, UTTAR KHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Ajit Kumar Chterji of Calcutta was the tenant of the premises known as Madho Bhawan wherein he carried on the business of running a hotel under the name and style of 'PLAZA HOTEL'. Ajit Kumar Chaterji sublet the premises to one Manik Lal Sarkar who continued to run the hotel business in the premises. The petitioner made an application for allotment of the said premises on the ground of deemed vacancy. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed that an inquiry be made into the matter. The Naib Tahsildar made a spot inspection of the premises and submitted his report to the Rent Control Eviction Officer that the premises was in the occupation of Manik Lal Sarkar to whom it had been sublet by Ajit Kumar Chaterji. He was of the opinion that as the premises had been illegally sublet it would be deemed to be vacant in the eye of law. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer declared a vacancy and applications were invited for allotment. Apart from the application of the petitioner two other applications were received. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer, by his order dated 30th Aug., 1974, allotted the premises to the petitioner. Two appeals were tiled against the order of allotment, one by Man Mohan Lal who was an unsuccessful applicant for allotment and the other by Mks Nahar Singh Kishan Chand claiming to be the agents of the owner. The learned District Judge allowed the appeals and set aside the order of allotment in favour of the petitioner. The court directed that the matter of allotment be reconsidered by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer. The allottee has come up to this Court aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge.

(2.) There is no dispute that Ajit Kumar Chaterji was initially the tenant of the disputed accommodation in which hotel business was carried on under the name and style of 'PLAZA HOTEL'. He sublet the premises to Manik Lal Sarkar. Since the subletting was illegal, the accommodation would be deemed to be vacant and it was open for allotment. It is also not disputed that the property is owned by Smt. Hans Raj Gupta who normally resides at New Delhi.

(3.) It appears that after the Rent Control & Eviction Officer declared a vacancy and applications for allotment had been made, he directed notice to be sent to the landlord. The case was ordered to be put up for hearing on 9.8.1574. On that date, it was discovered that no notice in fact was issued to the landlord. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer passed a fresh order for issue of the notice to the landlord and the case was ordered to be listed for hearing on 24.8.1974. In compliance of the aforesaid order, notice was issued to Sri Hans Raj Gupta on 19th Aug., 1974. The case was again adjourned to 29th Aug. 1974 when arguments were heard and the order of allotment was passed on 30.8.1974. The order of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer dated 29.8.1974 does not indicate that the landlord was actually served with the notice. The actual order of allotment was not addressed to the landlord. It also appears that immediately after the allotment order was passed in favour of the petitioner Manik Lal Sarkar delivered possession to him. The stand taken by the contesting respondents that the allotment order had been passed in mysterious circumstances, if not as a result of collusion between the petitioner and the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, appears to be justified. The proceedings before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer clearly indicate that the landlord was kept in the dark about the allotment proceedings. No information was conveyed to her that the vacancy has been declared and the accommodation was open to allotment. It appears from the order of the learned District Judge that a suit had been filed against Manik Lal Sarkar for his eviction on the ground that the premises had been illegally sublet to him. But since no notice of the allotment proceedings were given to the landlord this fact could not he brought to the notice of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer. It is equally surprising that when an inquiry was conducted by the Naib Tahsildar, Manik Lal Sarkar expressed his willingness to vacate the premises as soon as an order of allotment was passed and in fact he handed over possession to the petitioner when the allotment order was passed in his favour without reference to the owner. There was no direction to Manik Lal Sarkar to deliver possession to the allottee nor such a direction could be legally issued by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer. Manik Lal Sarkar waited for almost a year till an allotment order was passed in favour of the petitioner and before that order was even despatched to the owner of the premises, he hurriedly delivered possession to the petitioner. This conduct is also indicative of the fact that Manik Lal Sarkar was in league with the petitioner and the owner was deliberately kept in the dark about the allotment proceedings. No direct evidence of collusion could possibly be adduced in the case but circumstances do indicate that the order was obtained under suspicious circumstances.