LAWS(ALL)-1968-2-31

IRA MITTRA Vs. A K MANDHYAN

Decided On February 07, 1968
Ira Mittra Appellant
V/S
A K Mandhyan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against an order passed by Satish Chandra, J. on 15-7-1967, allowing Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3028 of 1966 and quashing an order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of Allahabad, dated 23-5-1966, together with the order of the Additional Commissioner, by which the case had been remanded to the Rent Control Officer for fresh decision, and the order of the State Government, refusing to interfere with the remand.

(2.) The dispute relates to a house in Lukerganj Mohalla owned by the Appellant Mrs. Ira Mitra. At the beginning of December 1964 this house was in the occupation of a tenant S.M. Dutta, while the landlady was living along with her father in a portion of her uncle's house in Mutthiganj. On 11-12-1964 S.M. Dutta vacated the house and in armed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer about the vacancy thereby created. The Petitioner-Respondent A.K. Mandhyan applied on 19-12-1964 for this house to be allotted to him; and on 6-1-1965 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order of allotment Under Section 7(2) of the Rent Control and Eviction Act in his favour. The landlady had meanwhile taken possession of the house and informed the Rent Control Officer accordingly on 8-1-1965 and again on 15-1-1965 (when she took the plea that S.M. Dutta had been a mere licensee and that there was no question of the house being let out on rent). A.K. Mandhyan, finding that he could not obtain possession of the premises, applied to the Rent Control Officer for action to be taken Under Section 7-A of the Act; and notice was issued to the landlady on 5-2-1965. She failed to file any reply within the time allowed and consequently an eviction order was passed against her on 18-2-1965. Thereupon she filed a revision before the Commissioner, which was allowed on the ground that notice had not been properly served on her, and the case was remanded for fresh orders. It was at this stage of the proceedings, on 20-5-1965, that the landlady formally applied for release of the house in her favour Under Rule 6 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Rules. On 19-6-1965 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed in order (Annexure C) rejecting Mrs. Ira Mittra's objections against the notice issued Under Section 7-A of the Act, along with her prayer for release of the disputed accommodation in her favour; and a fresh eviction notice was issued. Again a revision was filed before the Commissioner; and on 5-1-1966 this was allowed (by means of the order Annexure H), on the ground that the Rent Control Officer had rejected the landlady's application for release of the premises without considering one of the major pleas advanced by her (viz. that she needed the house to live in, in order to pursue her studies in a certain college in Allahabad), and the case was remanded to the Rent Control Officer for predetermining the landlady's need. A.K. Mandhyan filed a revision Under Section 7-F of the Act to the State Government against the order of the Additional Commissioner, but it was rejected on 14-2-1966 (Annexure I). The Rent Control Officer then proceeded to hear the case afresh and on 23-5-1966 passed the main impugned order (Annexure K), holding that the landlady's need was genuine and bonafide and releasing the disputed house in her favour.

(3.) The learned Single Judge has taken the view that in proceedings Under Section 7-A of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act the Rent Control Officer had only to inquire whether the allotment order Under Section 7(2) had been "duly passed", i.e. whether that order had been made after complying with the requirements of law, and that it was not open to the Rent Control Officer to interfere with the allotment on the ground that it was not just or proper. He has pointed out that there was no fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of facts that might vitiate the allotment order; and he has held that the mere fact that the landlady subsequently applied for release and succeeded in establishing that she had a genuine need for the premises would not be sufficient to render the allotment order invalid. He has found, therefore, that the Rent Control Officer had no power to cancel the allotment order of 6-1-1965 in favour of A.K. Mandhyan or to release the accommodation to the landlady in proceedings Under Section 7-A of the Act. He has accordingly quashed the Rent Control Officer's order of release passed on 23-5-1966, together with the Additional Commissioner's remand order dated 5-1-1966 and the State Government's order dated 14-2-1966, refusing to interfere Under Section 7-F.