JAGDISH PRASAD SAXENA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 18.5.1983 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra and order passed by the Special Judge (Additional District Judge), Agra dated 21.9.1984.

(2.) The facts stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner claimed himself to be the tenant of the accommodation in question. It was stated by the petitioner that he took that accommodation on rent from the previous landlady Smt. Raj Rani Kapoor, who was living in the same house and he used to pay the rent to her but no rent receipt was ever issued to the petitioner by the landlady. It is stated that at two limes, i.e., in the years 1971 and 1973 when she was away from Agra and stayed at Jaipur due to long illness, the petitioner sent rent of the house in occupation of the petitioner and the electricity charge for nine months and six months respectively by money order, which was accepted by her. She again went to Jaipur in January 1978 for temporary period. There she fell ill again and stayed with her daughter and ultimately she died in the year 1980. The petitioner sent rent and electricity charges for the period December. 1977 to September, 1980 through cheques of Canara Bank to Jaipur. Petitioner's further allegations are that after the death of landlady Smt. Raj Rani Kapoor. her daughter became the owner and landlady of the building and the disputed accommodation. The petitioner paid rent to her through cheque for the period from October. 1980 to February 1982. In February. 1982, the daughter of the previous landlady sold the properly to the respondent No. 4 and three others. The allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 manufactured and forged the deed of agreement alleged to have been executed by the petitioners showing him as care-taker and agreeing to vacate the accommodation within three months. After the three months, the respondent No. 4 set up respondent No. 3 for moving an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the allotment of the disputed accommodation on the ground that the petitioner is in illegal occupation and, therefore, there is vacancy and the same may be allotted to him. It is stated by the petitioner that no notice was issued on the application rather notice was directly published in the newspaper which was behind the back of the petitioner. The application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that he is the tenant since 1966 on monthly rent of Rs. 25 and, therefore, there is no vacancy of the disputed accommodation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as the tenancy has been regularised under Section 14 of Act No. 13 of 1972 as amended by Act No. 28 of 1976. The case was contested by the respondent No. 4 on the ground that the petitioner is care-taker of the building and he executed an agreement for the same and has agreed to vacate the accommodation within three months and since he had not vacated the accommodation therefore his possession has become unauthorised. The prescribed authority has held that the petitioner is a care-taker and declared the vacancy and ordered for the allotment of the disputed accommodation.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge, who also rejected the same. The petitioner has challenged these two orders in the present writ petition.