HAKIMAN BIBI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assails an order dated March 8, 1977 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Kanpur passed on an application moved by the present Petitioner under Section 21 read with Section 43(2)(rr) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the order aforesaid as also some other reliefs.

(2.) THE Petitioner is the owner landlady of premises No. 98/129, Beconganj, Kanpur of which Mohd. Matin, the third Respondent, is a tenant. The Petitioner made an application under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (U.P. Act III of 1947) for permission to sue the tenant Respondent for his eviction from the premises, inter alia, on the ground that she needed the said premises for her own use and that her need was bonafide, genuine and greater than that of the tenant -Respondent who could conveniently shift to the alternative accommodation in his possession. The tenant -Respondent resisted the application on various grounds and by his order dated December 27, 1971, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Addl. District Magistrate, Rationing), Kanpur rejected the application. The Petitioner challenged that order in a revision under Section 3(3) of U.P. Act III of 1947 which was subsequently transferred for disposal to the court of the Addl. District Judge, Kanpur in accordance with Section 43(2)(m) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 which had, in the meanwhile, been enforced. The learned Judge differed from the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and after comparing the need of the parties and the likely hardship to be caused to them eventually came to the conclusion that the premises were needed bonafide by the Petitioner whose need was greater than that of the tenant -Respondent. By his order dated April 27, 1973, the learned Additional District Judge, set aside that of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and directed that the premises in dispute shall stand released in favour of the Petitioner. The tenant -Respondent challenged that order before this Court in writ petition No. 2251 of 1973 which was, however, dismissed by a learned single Judge on March 13, 1975. Special Appeal No. 100 of 1975, in which the tenant -Respondent assailed the judgment of the learned single Judge, was also dismissed by a Division Bench on March 29, 1976. The tenant -Respondent unsuccessfully sought a certificate from this Court under Article 133 of the Constitution. His application in this regard was dismissed on April 20, 1976. Thereafter the present Petitioner filed an application under Section 21 read with Section 43(2)(rr) of U.P. Act XII of 1972 on July 29/30, 1976 for obtaining possession of the premises in dispute which was, however, dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Kanpur by its order dated March 8, 1977 impugned in the present petition and of which a copy has been filed as Annexure '14' to the writ petition.

(3.) THE submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner principally is that in the circumstances of the instant case and having regard to the orders actually passed by this Court earlier, the view taken by the Tribunal as aforesaid, was patently erroneous and that the Petitioner was entitled to be put into possession of the disputed premises on the basis of the order passed in her favour by the Additional District Judge in proceedings initiated by the Petitioner under Section 43(2)(rr) of the Act. The argument also is that having regard to the period for which the proceedings for eviction of the tenant -Respondent remained stayed under orders of appropriate authorities or courts, the application made by the Petitioner under Section 43(2)(rr) of the Act was well within limitation contemplated by that provision or by Rule 18 of the Rules.