PRITAM SINGH Vs. MUNSIF CITY, KANPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of proceedings Under Section 7-B of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The Petitioner alleges that Dewan Singh, Respondent No. 3, let out the accommodation in dispute to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 70/- . On 19-12-1961, the Petitioner made an application for allotment. Ultimately on 3-3-1962, the accommodation was allotted in favour of the Petitioner by the RC and EO. Subsequently the landlord moved for cancellation of the order of allotment and on 19-12-1962, the order of allotment was cancelled. Then on 26-3-1966, the landlord made an application Under Section 7-B of the Act for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month. The Petitioner filed an objection inter alia on the ground that Section 7-B was not attracted in the case because the Petitioner was not in, possession of the accommodation in pursuance of an order of allotment. The objection has been rejected by the Munsif by the impugned order passed on 11-6-1967. He held that in view of the proviso to Sub-section (7) of Section 7-B of the Act the objection filed by the tenant could not be entertained because he had neither deposited the arrears of rent nor furnished security there for to the satisfaction of the court. He further observed that the Petitioner was in possession in pursuance of an order of allotment and the cancellation of the order of the allotment did not change the position. The Munsif, therefore, allowed the application and directed that the Petitioner be evicted from the accommodation. Aggrieved the tenant has come to this Court.

(2.) Section 7-B empowers the landlord to make an application to the Munsif having territorial jurisdiction for an order of ejectment of the tenant. The conditions precedent for making an application Under Section 7-B are (1) The person is in occupation of an accommodation in pursuance of an order made under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 7 and (2) he is in arrears of rent or any installment thereof where it is payable in statements for more than three months. One condition precedent to the coming into operation of this section is that the tenant is in occupation of an accommodation in pursuance of an allotment order. The question is whether a person who came in possession in pursuance of an order of allotment or whose possession was recognised by the passing of an order of allotment in his favour but subsequently the order of allotment has been cancelled or withdrawn, remains in occupation after the cancellation of the allotment order in pursuance of that allotment order

(3.) In my opinion the occupation can be in pursuance of an allotment order only so long as the allotment, order is in operation. So long as the possession can be referred to the order of allotment and justified thereunder it would be an occupation in pursuance of that order. After the order of allotment has been cancelled the continued occupation could not be referred to the order of allotment because the order of allotment was no longer in existence. After the cancellation of the allotment order the possession could not be in pursuance thereof. So, the landlord will not be entitled to make an application Under Section 7-B after an order of allotment in favour of the tenant has been cancelled.