DCM LTD Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Gupta, J. Since counter-af fidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged, in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the parties' counsel, this writ petition is disposed of finally.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13-1-1998 passed by Rent Control and Evic tion Officer/ 'city Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar- respondent No. 1 declaring vacancy in respect of shop No. 18/179, The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar. According to the petitioner the said shop has been in its occupation since long and for running the said shop the petitioner company entered into an agreement dated 6-3-72 with M/s. Chunnilal Sohan Lal through its Karta Sri G. S. Agrawal. The petitioner has been regularly paying rent of the said shop and has paid the same upto March, 1998. It is further alleged that on 17-1-82 the petitioner company received a notice under Section 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act requiring it to make payment of rent directly to the Principal Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax department. On 11-10-75 the petitioner company entered into another agreement with Sri VK. Agrawal-respondent No. 3 whereby it was agreed by the later that he would act as agent of the company to sell its products from the shop in question on the terms and conditions laid down in the said agreement and the said respondent also gave security of Rs. 50,000/ -. According to the allegation made in the petition, the petitioner com pany had no information of the proceed ings held before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and when the company received a Caveat application/notices through Sri Sandeep Saxena, Advocate High Court, Allahabad, the petitioner sent its representative to Kanpur who enquired and found that without issuing any notice to the petitioner company, the proceed ings were held before the respondent. No. 1, and respondent No. 3 in collusion with respondents No. 4 and 5 got declared the shop in question vacant. In short the petitioner s case is that respondent No. 3 was not its sub-tenant and was only acting as its agent and that the impugned order declaring vacancy has been passed without serving any notice on the petitioner com pany in collusion with respondents No. 3,4 and 5. It is also not disputed that by an order dated 27-1-98 the shop in question has been released in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5 who have purchased the property in question from the earst-while owner-landlord.

(3.) IN the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner- company it was reiterated that respondent No. 3 was mere ly, an agent of the company. The letter dated 7-11-75 gave only a right to respon dent No. 3 to sell the products of Synthetic material in the capacity of agent of the company under certain specified racks in the shop in question. IN reply to paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 3, the allegation of assignment of rights of the petitioner-company in favour of M/s. Phoenix Overseas Ltd. , has not been denied. However, it is asserted that the petitioner-company has not relin quished its tenancy rights.