GHASITU SINGH Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord's petition for quashing the order dated 13.1.1975 passed by the learned District Judge, Muzaffarnagar.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that Chaman Lal, father of the petitioner, was owner of the house No. 33 situate in Mohalla Kaharan in the city of Mazaffarnagar. He used to run flour mill in a portion of this house. Sometime after he sold the entire business to Devendra Kumar and Smt. Urmila Devi, wife of the brother of Devender Kumar and Smt. Urmila Devi, wife of the brother of Devender Kumar (opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2). These persons took the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 30 on 17.11.1973 and began to run flour mill purchases by them. Sometime after, Chaman Lal died leaving behind a son, the petitioner, who became the landlord of the disputed accommodation. The petitioner moved an application under Section 16 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 for release of the building on the ground the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 had vacated it and started flour mill in another shop lying in front of the disputed shop. It was also alleged that the shop was bonafide required by him for his own use. On 21.12.1973 the Inspector went on the spot and gave a report stating that the premises were still in possession of the tenants and flour mill was being run. However, he found that the electric connection was disconnected more than a year back. On 17.12.1973 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer released the premises in favour of the landlord. Till this date the tenant had no notice of these proceedings. On 21.12.1973 the landlord moved an application for delivery of possession with the allegations that the premises in dispute were still locked by the tenants. On this application notices were ordered to be issued. A notice dated 21.12.1973 was given to one Jugal Kishore for service and he reported that Devendra Kumar was not available and his servant had refused to take the notice. The endorsement did not bear any date. Thereafter the landlord moved an application for police aid and ultimately took possession of the premises on 16.5.1974 after breaking open the locks. On 20th of May 1974, the tenants opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 moved an application under Section 16(5) of the new Act for review of that order. It was alleged that the premises were not vacant and that they got no notices of the proceedings of release. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application by holding that the accommodation was vacant and its possession was lawfully delivered. Aggrieved by this order the tenants filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Act, as it stood at that time. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the tenanted accommodation had neither fallen vacant nor it could be deemed to be vacant on the date the application for release was made or the release order was passed. He also held that the landlord himself had disconnected the electric connection and they were left with no option but to start their business in another shop adjacent to the accommodation in dispute but all through they remained in possession of the disputed shop and their machine etc. were lying in it. He also held that the landlord had kept the tenants in ignorance about the proceedings of release and obtained release order behind their back. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the release order dated 17.3.1973 was vacated. It was also ordered that the tenants shall be put back in the same position in which they were before the release order.

(3.) The landlord has filed this petition for quashing the said order passed by the learned District Judge.