GHAUSIA BANO Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE controversy relates to first floor accommodation at 41-B, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow. Dr. M. Nisar Beg was the owner-landlord of this building. THE accommodation in question at the first floor consisting of two rooms and some open space was earlier occupied by one Bishambhar Lal who is said to have vacated the same. Dr. M. Nisar Beg applied for its release under section 16 (1) (b) of (J. P. Act XIII of 172 on the ground that this accommodation was needed by him for starting his medical professional practice. His application was allowed by order dated 20-9-1982 (Annexure-1). As is mentioned therein it had been given out by Dr. M Nisar Beg that the premises were required for starting his clinic and that he shall not let out to any one else. Accepting the prayer the accommodation was released in favour of Dr. M. Nisar Beg to enable him to start his own medical clinic.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority considering the report of the Rent Control Inspector and the material placed in the form of affidavits of the parties recorded that the landlord had taken the stand that he was a partner in the advertising agency business but he failed to produce any document relating to the partnership and no accounts etc. were also brought on record to establish that, the business was started by the landlord either as. a sole owner or as a partner. One of the pleas raised by the landlord before the Prescribed Authority was that action under section 19 of the Act could be taken only within three months from the date on which the landlord allegedly started this business and, as such, no order could be passed under these provisions. According to the Prescribed Authority, it was a case not covered by section 19 because as per evidence landlord had passed on the possession of the premises to a third person and it was a case of 'deemed vacancy'. THE persons who were in occupation and running the advertising business are unauthorised occupants. Accordingly, he passed orders for allotment of these premises in favour of the respondent.