DAYAL CHAND MEHTA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Tandon. The petitioner claims himself to be a tenant of premises No. 74, Mani Ram Road, Rishikesh, Dehradun.

(2.) THE order impugned is dated 28 January 1991, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in Rent Control Revision No. 6 of 1988: Rajiv Kumar and others v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Rishikesh. This revision is against an order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 14 January, 1988, in Miscellaneous Case No. 43 of 1985: Rajiv Kumar and another v. Smt. Lilawati.

(3.) THE Court has gone through the record of the writ petition and carefully perused the order impugned, that is, of the III Additional District Judge. While the submission before this Court is that the Court in revision, that is, the III Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to go into the matter relating to vacancy or, for that matter, coming to the conclusion that a vacancy exists in the premises. A reading of the order, in fact, puts another proposition. The Court in revision, in fact, has taken the locus standi of the petitioner to be in the premises when he has not even been a tenant and a person who occupied the premises without the permission of the erstwhile landlord. After having been given an opportunity, the petitioner could not satisfy the revisional court on how he came into the premises when the evidence seems to be suggesting that any receipt which was issued for a portion occupied by the petitioner, who claims to be a tenant, was in the name of a tenant under whose umbrella, the petitioner had inducted himself into the premises. The expression used for the petitioner by learned District Judge is that of a 'Sikmi Kirayedar'. The petitioner may have been a tenant of a tenant, but all this was without the permission and knowledge of the landlord. For the latter the petitioner stood as a trespasser. The finding is that the petitioner was not even treated as a subtenant. The petitioner had the opportunity to summon witnesses as evidence. The erstwhile landlord who could reflect on the situation on what the status of the petitioner was would not place any evidence to assist the petitioner and the receipts which were shown to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as in the possession of the petitioner were receipts given to the tenant under whose camouflage the petitioner had entered into the premises.