JHABBO LAL DEAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlords writ petition arising out of the judgment and order dated 13.4.1983 passed by respondent No. 1. The dispute relates to a residential accommodation situate at 22. Subhash Road, Dehradun. In the year 1952 the disputed accommodation was let out to the U. P. branch of the "Harijan Sewak Sangh" (an organisation looking after the welfare of weaker section), through the Honarary Secretary, respondent No. 2 who besides running the office of the Sangh in the disputed accommodation also used a major portion of the same as his residence since the inception of the tenancy and paid rent to the landlord. The Sangh shifted its office lock stock and barrel from Dehradun to Lucknow in the year 1965 and left accommodation in question in the sole occupation of respondent No. 2. With the shifting of the office, the respondent No. 2 who was the Honorary Secretary ceased to have any concern with or interest in the activities of the Sangh but he continued to be in occupation of the disputed house and himself paid rent to the landlord till the year 1977.

(2.) On 6.12.1978, the respondent No. 2 moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Dehradun (in short R.C. and E.O.) for making a formal order of allotment in his name after regularising his occupation under Section 14 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as he has been occupying the disputed house as tenant all throughout the period after the shifting of the office of the Sangh in the year 1965. A letter dated 7.12.1977 of the Sangh addressed to the R.C. and E.O. was also annexed with that application. Through that letter the Secretary of the Sangh informed the R.C. and E.O. that the Sangh had vacated the disputed premises in the year 1965 and thereafter it had no concern with it and the Sangh would have no objection if the house was allotted to the respondent No. 2. The landlord petitioner also made an application for release of the house in question infer alia alleging that the occupation of respondent No. 2 was unauthorised and a deemed vacancy has occurred.

(3.) The R.C. and E.O. by the order dated 19.7.78 rejected the landlord's application for release holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no vacancy in law had occurred. This order was challenged by the landlord in revision. The revisional court set aside the order of the R.C. and E.O. and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the question of vacancy as in its opinion, nature of the occupation of respondent No. 2 was not properly and thoroughly investigated by the R.C. and E.G.