BALWANT SINGH Vs. VII ADDL DISTT JUDGE BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 3 Smt. Santosh Kumari was the owner of house No. 8, Supentine Road, Bareilly Cantt. She appears to have purchased this house by a sale deed dated August 7, 1956. She retained a few rooms in her possession and let out the rest of it to two tenants, Subedar Balwant Singh and Captain Roshanlal Jetlay. In March 1976, she applied for release of the two rooms under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act on the ground that her husband was in the State Police Service. He was Deputy Superintendent of Police posted at Etah. He was due to retire on August 31, 1976. She along with her husband and children desired to live to their own house at Bareilly after retirement.

(2.) THE tenants contested the application. THE Prescribed Authority, however, relying on sub-section (iv) (1-A) of Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 1972, granted the application and directed the eviction of the tenants. THE tenants went up in appeal but failed. THEy have now come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) SECTION 3 which is the definition section, begins by saying 'In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.' Though the definition of landlord in clause (j) excludes the agent or attorney of such person, except for purposes of clause (g), yet it cannot be gainsaid that the agent or attorney would not be included within the meaning of the word 'landlord' as occurring in SECTION 21 (iv) (1-A) of the Act. Sub-section (iv) (1-A), gives a personal privilege to the landlord to apply for release on satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in it. It will be preposterous if the landlord is supposed to include the agent or attorney of the tenants for purposes of sub-section (iv) (1A).