TILAK CHAND Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court has referred this case to a Larger Bench while doubting the correctness of the decision in Vinaya Kumar v. District Supply Officer, 1980 0 AllLJ 462. The question raised lies in a narrow compass and it arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) Sri Trilok Chandra, petitioner is the owner of the land which is under occupation of the tenant-respondent 2. The land was given under a lease dated May 10, 1948 for a period of 10 years. The rent payable thereunder was Rs. 25/- per month. The tenant was at liberty to raise construction but must remove the same and deliver vacant possession of the land to landlord after the term of the lease. The original lease was entered into by respondent 2 with the father of petitioner. Later on there was a family settlement by which the land came to be allotted against the share of petitioner who became the owner thereof.

(3.) Petitioner moved the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for determining the annual rent payable in respect of the land. The application was filed under Sub-Sec. (5) of S.29-A, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 ("Act" for short). The Rent Control and Eviction Officer upon hearing the parties rejected the application on the ground that there has been an agreement between parties for payment of rent in respect of the land and, therefore, the landlord has no right to have the annual rent determined. He has, however, recorded a finding that the original lease which was of the year 1948 has expired in 1958.