HARIHAR RAMCHANDRA SANSTHAN Vs. HOUSE ALLOTMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the provisions of Chapter III of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order ). The suit premises were allotted to the respondent No. 2 by the House Allotment Officer under Clauses 23 and 24 of the Rent Control Order as per the impugned order dated 26-4-1985, the respondent No. 2 being the Government servant. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the aforesaid order of allotment passed by the House Allotment Officer. By the judgment in the case of (Vidharbha (Rent Control) Bhadekaru Sangh, Akola v. State of Maharashtra) 1986 Mh. L. J. 882, this Court has struck down the provisions of Chapter III containing clauses 22 to 27 of the Rent Control Order as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal, incompetent and void as it is passed under Clauses 23 and 24 of Chapter III of the Rent Control Order.

(2.) IT is, however, urged on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that pursuant to the aforesaid order of allotment, the respondent No. 2 is put in possession of the suit house on 15-5-1985 by the petitioner and thereafter the respondent No. 2 is also paying him the rent regularly. It is, therefore, his submission that in view of these facts, I should not interfere with the order of allotment in the instant case. He contends that the declaration of invalidity of Chapter III made by this Court cannot apply to the orders which are already executed but would apply to the orders which are only prospective. As regards the above submission, it may be seen that there is no declaration made in the aforesaid judgment that the judgment would apply only prospectively. However, what is relied upon on behalf of the respondent No. 2 is the saving made by this Court in the judgment in respect of the proceedings in which a decree or order of eviction has become final and the landlord has already taken possession of the building or any part thereof pursuant thereto.

(3.) THE relevant operative part in para 42 of the above judgment is extracted below :