SANA ULLAH Vs. ASHOK KAPIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IBAD Ullah Khan, father of the petitioner, was lessee of a piece of land measuring 160 square yards, situate in Takia Shahgarh, Budhana Gate, Meerut City. On the said land, the petitioner's father made certain constructions. It bore Municipal Number 752 (New) corresponding to 672 (Old). IBAD Ullah Khan had been letting out the aforesaid premises to tenants. Ultimately, by means of a lease deed dated 7.3.1969, the land measuring 160 square yards along with the constructions standing thereon was let out to one Deep Chand Gupta for a period of five years. On 25.6,1969, IBAD Ullah Khan died, leaving behind the petitioner as his sole heir. On 3.8.1974, Deep Chand Gupta, in compliance of the terms of the lease, vacated the premises and handed over its possession to the petitioner. On 20.8.1974, an application was moved by Ashok Kapil, Editor and Proprietor of 'Kapii Times', Meerut, for allotment of the aforesaid premises. On 3.9.1974, the petitioner filed an objection before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer asserting that the constructions standing on the land were not 'building', liable to be allotted, and that the petitioner was interested to use the said Ahata for his own purposes. On 26.10.1974, a report was submitted by the Rent Control Inspector. Subsequent to the aforesaid report, the peti tioner requested the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for dropping the pro ceedings for allotment on the same ground on which he had already moved an application on 3.9.1974. The ground was that the Ahata existing on the land was not a 'building' within the meaning of that term, defined in Section 3 of U. P. Act XIII of 1972, and, as such, no allotment order could be passed in respect of it. On 3.9.1975, the Rent Control Inspector again submitted a report to the District Magistrate, Meerut, and observed therein that the petitioner had removed the roofs from the constructions, and that as Ashok Kapil was the fittest Candidate for allotment, an order to that effect be made in his favour. On the said report, no endorsement was made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 14.9.1975, accepting the recommendation of the Rent Control Inspec tor and directing for the allotment of the premises to respondent 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge. On 29.9.1975, the appellate authority remanded the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for a fresh enquiry into the matter. On 8.L0.1975, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer again made an order holding that the premises in question was allotable and, as such, the allotment order made in favour of respondent 4 was not illegal. Before making that order, fresh reports had also been obtained from the Rent Control Inspector. The appeal was re-heard by the appellate authority, and since the appe llate authority was of the view that certain findings were not recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, he again sent back the case to him for a fresh decision. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer again heard the parties and passed an order on 7.11.1975. In this order, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the compound was a covered accommodation and was constructed after the year 1951, the proceedings for allotment could be taken in respect thereof. The District Judge heard the appeal again. Thereafter, on 2.1.1976, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The first controversy that arose for decision in the present case was whether the constructions standing on the land were 'building', and that an allotment order could be made in respect thereof. In this connection, the case of the landlord was that he had given the vacant land to Deep Chand Gupta, and that he had made certain constructions of his own on the spot, but while vacating the premises Deep Chand Gupta had demolished those constructions. The case of respondent 4, however, was that the constructions belonged to the landlord, and that he had illegally and unjustifiably removed the roofs of the walls after the same had been vacated by Deep Chand Gupta. According to respondent 4, Deep Chand Gupta only constructed certain sheds in addition to the existing building in pursuance of the terms of the agreement executed between the petitioner and Deep Chand Gupta for his ice-cream factory. Deep Chand Gupta was not the owner of the roofs, and that the petitioner had removed them with an ulterior motive to evade the provisions of the Act. On the aforesaid controversy, the Appellate Authority framed the follow ing three points : "1. Whether the rooms were constructed by Deep Chand, previous tenant or by the landlord himself ? If so, its effect ?

(2.) WHETHER the roofs of the building were demolished by the appel lant after it had fallen vacant or by the premises tenant Sri Deep Chand before his vacation ? If so, its effect ?