SHASHI GOVIL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE property in dispute is house no. 209-D, Arvindpuri, Westend Road, Tanki Mohalla, Meerut Cantt. Originally, one Smt. Bhagwati Devi, widow of late Sri Jiya Lal Gupta, and Balwant Rai Shastri were the owners and landlords of the said property. On 10th January, 1983, the property in dispute was sold to the petitioner Smt. Shashi Govil, wife of Rameshwar Nath Govil and consequently, she became the landlady of the premises in dispute. THE original tenant of the property was one Niranjan Lai Jain. He died in March, 1977, leaving behind three sons, namely, V. K. Jain, S. K. Jain and J. K. Jain. Since J. K. Jain was, admittedly, not living with his father, the tenancy rights were inherited by V. K. Jain and S. K. Jain alone. THEy became tenants-in-common of the property in dispute and are respondent nos. 3 and 4 respectively to this petition. In the year 1979, S. K. Jain was transferred to the Delhi Branch of the State Bank of India and was also provided with an official accommodation at 'Greater Kailash. V. K. Jain was transferred on 9th March, 1983, to the Narendra Nagar Branch of the State Bank of India, district Pauri Oarhwal. On 8th June, 1983, Y. C. Agarwal applied for allotment of the house in dispute on the ground that the property should be deemed vacant. On this application of Y. C. Agarwal, the Rent Control Inspector was directed to submit a report. THE Rent Control Inspector submitted his report on 2nd August, 1983, stating that the property be deemed vacant. On 24th August, 1983, a vacancy was notified by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised four contentions before me. His first contention is that the tenant respondents, in fact, own six big independent residential flats consisting of several rooms in the city of Meerut itself. Two flats fell vacant and, consequently, the property should be deemed to be vacant under the provisions of section 12 (3) of the Act. The second submission is that S. K. Jain having been transferred to Delhi and he having started living in Greater Kailash, the property would be deemed to be vacant under section 12 (1) (c) read with section 12 (3-A) of the Act. The third submission is that so far as V. K. Jain is concerned, he having been transferred to Narendra Nagar and he as well as the members of his family having taken up residence in Narendra Nagar, the property should be deemed to be vacant under section 12 (1) (c) of the Act and the view, to the contrary, taken by the revisional authority is manifestly erroneous. The fourth submission made by the learned counsel is that the revisional authority has acted illegally and with material irregularity in determining the question of vacancy on the premise that the question of vacancy has to be determined when an application comes for allotment or the landlord applies for release of the accommodation in bis favour. Since the revision has been considered on a wrong premises, the entire judgment is vitiated in law.