Back
2001 Supreme(All) 455
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
O. P. Garg, J.
JAGANNATH SAHAI VERMA AND ANOTHER - Appellant
Versus
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER (II), ALLAHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 14661 Of 2001
Decided On : 05/09/2001
K.M.Asthana, R.B.Singhal, RAJESH TANDON, S.N.Mishra, Sanjai Misra
The court emphasized the prevention of fraudulent withdrawal of vacant buildings from the pool of buildings available for allotment, the purpose and object of the Act to regulate letting and rent, and the prohibition on letting and occupation without an order of allotment under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act.
Headnote:
Vacancy - Release of Upper Portion of Building - U. P. Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) - Section 21(1)(a), Section 2(1)(g), Section 19, Section 24, Section 12 - The court discussed the abuse of order of release by the landlord, the provisions of Section 2(1)(g) exempting buildings with monthly rent exceeding two thousand rupees, and the consequences of deemed vacancy under Section 12 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a release petition under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The upper portion of the house was released and subsequently occupied by non-family members. The petitioners challenged the order of vacancy through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord abused the release order by allowing non-family members to occupy the released accommodation, leading to a deemed vacancy under Section 12 of the Act. The court also held that the exemption clause in Section 2(1)(g) did not apply, and the provisions of the Act were applicable to the accommodation in question.
Issues: Abuse of release order, applicability of exemption clause in Section 2(1)(g), deemed vacancy under Section 12, and validity of the agreement for letting at a monthly rent exceeding two thousand rupees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the prevention of fraudulent withdrawal of vacant buildings from the pool of buildings available for allotment, the purpose and object of the Act to regulate letting and rent, and the prohibition on letting and occupation without an order of allotment under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court held that the provisions of the Act applied to the accommodation in question, and the order of vacancy made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could not be defeated by the motivated agreement for letting at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,050.
( 1 ) THE thumbnail sketch of the case is that the petitioner No. 1, Jagannath Sahal Varma is the owner-landlord of premises No. 1450/989 Mutthiganj. Allahabad. Upper portion of the said house was originally under the tenancy of one Gautam Deo Singh at the monthly rent of Rs. 100. An application for release--P. A. Case No. 52 of 1986 Under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by the landlord. The said release petition was allowed on the basis of a compromise by the Prescribed Authority on 2. 8. 1986 pursuant to which, the landlord took vacant possession of the released upper portion of the house. Admittedly, Dilip Kumar Srivastava, who happens to be the real brother of the wife of the landlord lkyk occupied the released accommodation along with his family comprised of his wife and a child during the period 2. 6. 89 to 19. 6. 96, i. e. , for a period more than 7-1/2 years. Thereafter the landlord inducted Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal alias Neelu-petitioner No. 2 as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,050 in pursuance of a tenancy agreement dated 10. 1. 1998 initially for a period of eleven months.
( 2 ) THE respondent No. 2. Ashutosh Pandey and respondent No. 3, Vikas Kumar moved separate application for allotment of the upper portion of the said house as according to them, it was in unauthorized occupation of Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal alias Neelu. On the applications for allotment, a report of the Rent Control Inspector was called for. The report dated 7. 4. 1998 filed by the Rent Control Inspector indicated that Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal is an illegal occupant of the upper portion of the accommodation released in favour of the landlord. Affidavits were exchanged between the applicants for allotment, on the one hand, and the landlord as well as alleged illegal occupant, on the other. After considering the material brought on record and appraising the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to the conclusion that a deemed vacancy of the upper portion of the building in question in occupation of Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal alias Neelu-petitloner No. 2 has occured and accordingly by the impugned order dated 23. 3. 2001, Annexure 10 to the petition, the vacancy has been declared and notified. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have come before this court to challenge the order of vacancy by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
( 3 ) A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. Sri Rajesh Tandon who appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 urged that the present petition be decided finally on merits on the basis of the material brought on record.
( 4 ) HEARD S/sri R. B. Singhal and K. M. Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri rajesh Tandon, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S. N. Misra for the contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
( 5 ) THE thrust of the submission on behalf of the petitioners is that since Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal alias Neelu petitioner No. 2 has been inducted as a tenant in pursuance of an agreement at a monthly rent of Rs. 2. 050, the tenanted accommodation would no longer be governed by the provisions of the Act in view of the exemption clause contained in Section 2 (1) (g) of the Act which reads as follows :
"2. (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following, namely : (a) ****** (b) ****** (c) ****** (d) ****** (e) ****** (f) ****** (g) Any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees" (Inserted by U. P. Act No. 5 of 1995 with effect from 29. 9. 1994 ).
( 6 ) THE next submission on behalf of the petitioners is that since the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the accommodation in occupation of the petitioner No. 2, the entire exercise of declaration of vacancy has been otiose and subsequent pro
