DEBI PRASAD JALAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four persons have filed this writ petition. They challenged the order of the authorities under the U.P. (Temp) Control of Rent and Eviction Act granting permission to the landlord respondent No. 4 for filing suits for the ejectment of the petitioners from the accommodation in dispute. At the threshold of the hearing of the petition the petitioner No. 1 filed an application that he had entered into a compromise with the landlord and that he does not desire to press the writ petition. The petition so far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned has been dismissed.

(2.) The dispute relates to premises No. 55/55, Generalganj, Kanpur. The four petitioners were tenants in different portions of this building. On 6th October, 1964 the landlord, respondent No. 4, filed an application for permission to sue for the ejectment of all the four petitioners and also one Chiranji Lal who was also a tenant in a portion of this building. The Town Rationing Officer by an order dated 20th September, 1965 granted the requisite permission against all the tenants. The present four tenants filed a Revision (No. 27 of 1965) before the Commissioner on or about 7th October, 1965. The Commissioner agreed with the finding of the Town Rationing Officer that the need of the landlord was genuine because it proposed to demolish the building and reconstruct it for establishing a school for small boys and girls of the locality. He also agreed with the finding of the Town Rationing Officer that the landlord had every intention to carry out that scheme. He accepted the argument advanced by the tenants that Chiranji Lal had died and the landlord has not proceeded against his heris. Consequently, the portion in the possession of the heirs of Chiranji Lal could not be vacated and, therefore, the scheme of the landlord to demolish the house cannot succeed. The Commissioner, by his order dated 26th February, 1966, set aside the order of the Town Rationing Officer and remanded the case to him with the direction that he should satisfy himself whether Chiranji Lal's family could be ejected by private arrangement as has been argued before him, and if this be so there would not be any reason to find fault with the order of the learned Town Rationing Officer.

(3.) After remand the landlord made a formal application for permission to file a suit against the heirs of Chiranji Lal. On or about 30th September, 1967 Hari Shanker, the son of Chiranji Lal, filed an application stating that the family of Chiranji Lal had come to terms with the landlord and that they had agreed to surrender the portion of the building under their tenancy. On 9th October, 1967 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer heard the parties and allowed the application for permission. He held that the stand taken by Hari Shanker was that the family of Chiranji Lal had come to terms and were prepared to surrender the possession of the accommodation under their tenancy to the landlord. He disbelieved the case of the other tenants that the compromise was not genuine.