Back
1971 Supreme(SC) 677
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT, ACTG. C.J.I., I.D. DUA, H.R. KHANNA AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Masood Ahmad, Appellant
Versus
The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1156 of 1971, D/- 16-12-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Yogeswhar Prasad, Advocate, and Mr. S. K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga, Advocates of M/s. Bagga Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Jagadish Swarup Solicitor-General of India, (M/s. J. P. Goyal, M. P. Mehrotra and .R . K. Bhatt, Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 3
Headnote:
Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 1947 – Sections 7,7-A,7-F,3(1),2(d),2(A),17 - Defence of India Rules – Rules 3,6,7,81 - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Application - Sale deed - Cancelling allotment order of a shop - Tenant of one shop out of eight in premises mentioned above under respondent - He used to carry on a business in bamboos and wooden post - He purported to execute a sale deed transferring his business including its good will and stock-in-trade to appellant - Within three days thereafter said tenant died leaving a widow appellant made an application to Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allotment of shop of himself under provisions of Act on strength of his purchase of business and stock-in-trade - On enquiry through an inspector officer came to learn that widow was still in occupation - Officer rejected appellant s application holding that there was no vacancy - Whether landlord is to be allowed benefit of rule - Whether proceedings under Section 7-A can be properly instituted as this did not form subject-matter of writ petition of appellant nor was any relief asked for on any such ground - Held, It is evident that appellant had gone into possession even before allotment order was made and was trying his best to hold on to it - Allotment order was subject to the revisionary jurisdiction of State Government under Section 7-F - Very wide powers are given to State Government under this section and as State Government directed cancellation of allotment in favour of appellant on a perusal of record including report of officer and appellant s memorandum putting forward all grounds urged in his favour High Court rightly took view that order could not be questioned - Our view rightly pointed out that each case must necessarily depend on its own fact - In this case facts are that two shops adjoining accommodation in question are in occupation of landlord and roof thereof has fallen - There is nothing to contradict landlord case that whole building is old and dilapidated and requires to be demolished and that he needed premises for erecting a cinema house with officer accommodation etc. Apparently State Government was satisfied with this reason - We find ourselves unable to subscribe to view that even if building is in a dilapidated conduction a portion whereof is without a roof and landlord wants to put up a cinema theatre to carry on business he does not require accommodation bona fide for his personal need - Points and can be disposed of together - Our attention was drawn to fact that landlord had made an application for release of accommodation in his favour as early as - Letter was sent under certificate of posting bearing postal mark of that date - On third point counsel submitted that as landlord must have been aware of fact that tenant was dead and accommodation has fallen vacant and as he kept quiet even after notification of vacancy by Allotment Committee he cannot complain of allotment in favour of appellant Moreover it was urged it was only after allotment in favour of appellant that landlord sought to have an order of release in his favour in consequence his application should have been thrown out by State Government - In above view of matter points do not call for consideration - Order under Section 7-F cannot be questioned on ground that State Government had failed to give reasons for rejecting officer order - State Government gave its reasons quite clearly when it noted that landlord s application had not been considered - State Government also hold that landlord needed premises for reconstruction - This disposes of point - Appeal Dismissed
Judgment
MITTER, J.:- This appeal by special leave is from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court rendered in a Special Appeal upholding the order of the State Government dated March 12, 1968 under S. 7-F of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 1947 cancelling the allotment order of a shop in premises No. 80/79, Banasmandi Coupergani. Kanpur dated October 21, 1967 made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Kanpur in favour of the appellant and releasing the same to the respondent No. 3 before us
2. The relevant facts are as follows. One Arif Hussein was a tenant of one shop out of eight in the premises mentioned above under respondent No. 3. He used to carry on a business in bamboos and wooden posts. On July 8, 1967 he purported to execute a sale deed transferring his business including its good will and stock-in-trade to the appellant, Masood Ahmed. Within three days thereafter the said tenant died leaving a widow The appellant made an application dated July 23/28 to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter referred to as the officer ) for allotment of the shop of himself under the provisions of the Act on the strength of his purchase of the business and the stock-in-trade. On enquiry through an inspector, the officer came to learn that the widow was still in occupation. On August 9, 1967 the officer rejected the appellant s application holding that there was no vacancy. On the same day the widow intimated the officer that she would be vacating the shop after the Iddat period. She followed this up by writing to the officer on August 26, 1967 that she had vacated the shop and given possession thereof to the appellant. On September 4 the officer directed his inspector to enquire and report. On receipt of a letter from the appellant dated the 16th September praying for allotment of the shop on the ground of the widow s having vacated it and his aforementioned purchase, the officer called for a report again. This appears to have been submitted on the 18th September. On 30th September the officer ordered publication of a notification that the shop was vacant. Such a notification was issued on the 4th October. It appears that besides the appellant there was another applicant for allotment of the shot. On 21st October, 1967 the Allotment Committee considered both the applications and recommended allotment to the apellant. On the same day, the officer allotted the shop in terms of the recommendation. On December 7, 1967 respondent No. 3 filed a revision application under s. 7-F of the Act of the State Government. Therein he stated that the building as a whole was a very old one, that two shops adjoining Arif Hussain s were without any roof and in his occupation though vacant and that the whole building required demolition and complete reconstruction. He stated further that he intended to utilise the site by demolishing the old building and constructing a modern cinema hall and a marketing centre with office flats and had by letter dated Aug. 24, 1967 asked the officer that in case the shop of Arif Hussain fell vacant it should not be allotted to anybody but released in his favour to enable him to carry out his plan. His further case was that though he had not heard of the result of his application, he came to learn that the officer had passed an allotment order in favour of the appellant on the 21st October. His complaint was that all this was done behind his back and that he was being deliberately kept in ignorance of the whole matter. He alleged that he had no knowledge that the shop was being treated as vacant and complained that the illegal occupation of the appellant was being shielded and condoned by the allotment order without considering his own application for release made on the 24th August. The appellant filed his reply on January 16, 1968 whereupon Government called for a report from the officer which was submitted on the 23rd January. In this mention was made of the rejection of th
