ATAR SINGH Vs. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sri Atar Singh, tenant-petitioner has sought to quash the orders dated 15.12.86 and 26.9.88 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (Civil Supplies) Delegatory Authority, Meerut and the then VIIth Addl. District Judge. Meerut, whereby a portion of the house in dispute situate in Vijai Nagar. Meerut was released in favour of the landlord respondent Kulwant Singh.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The fact that the petitioner was earlier a tenant of the ground floor of the house in question of the landlord-respondent is not disputed before this Court. It appears that on a petition being moved by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 for the eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the ground floor of the house in question, it was ordered by the prescribed authority on 12.8.S1 that the petitioner would vacate the ground floor of the house in question provided the landlord-respondent provides similar accommodation on the first floor of his house within one month from the date of the said order. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the said judgment of the prescribed authority was dismissed by this Court on 3.1.88 with the observation that the petitioner had legal right under the provisions of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 to ask the landlord-respondent to get the accommodation windproof and waterproof. The petitioner specifically averred in para 7 of his affidavit that thereafter according to the orders of the prescribed authority, possession was handed over by the petitioner-tenant to the respondent-landlord of the ground floor and the tenant-petitioner was given possession of the upper floor consisting of two rooms, bathroom and a kitchen on the first floor and the latrine on the ground floor in the year 1985. Subsequently, however, the upper portion of the house in question was declared vacant by the prescribed authority and was released in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 3 as also by the lower revisional court.

(3.) Sri N. C. Raghuvanshi vehemently argued before me that when in pursuance of the earlier order of the prescribed authority which was maintained upto the level of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14614 of 1984, dated 3.1-1988 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice. V. K. Khanna, the tenant-petitioner had occupied the first floor of the house in question after evicting the ground floor of which he was admittedly the tenant of the landlord, for all practical purposes it would be deemed that the petitioner had occupied the first floor of the house in question as a tenant and was a lawful tenant thereof. There was, therefore, no question of the accommodation which was admittedly there tn the first floor of the house in question in possession of the tenant-petitioner having fallen vacant or deemed to have become vacant.