Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J. C. Gupta, J.
JHABBO LAL - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 6535 Of 1983
Decided On : 08/19/1998
LANDLORD AND TENANT - URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1976 - SECTION 14 - REGULARISATION OF OCCUPATION - IMPLIED CONSENT OF LANDLORD - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute related to a residential accommodation in Dehradun, which was let out to the U.P. branch of the "Harijan Sewak Sangh" in 1952. The Honorary Secretary of the Sangh, respondent No. 2, occupied a major portion of the accommodation as his residence. In 1965, the Sangh shifted its office to Lucknow, leaving respondent No. 2 in sole occupation of the house. He continued to pay rent to the landlord till 1977. In 1978, respondent No. 2 applied for regularisation of his occupation under Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, claiming that he had been occupying the house as a tenant with the landlord's consent since 1965. The landlord opposed the application, contending that respondent No. 2's occupation was unauthorized and that a deemed vacancy had occurred.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Control and Eviction Officer (R.C.E.O.) initially rejected the landlord's application for release, holding that no vacancy had occurred in law. However, on revision, the order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on the question of vacancy. The R.C.E.O. then held that respondent No. 2 was not entitled to the protection of Section 14 and that his occupation was unauthorized. The landlord's application for release was granted. Respondent No. 2 challenged this order in revision, and the revisional court set aside the R.C.E.O.'s order, holding that respondent No. 2's occupation had been regularized under Section 14 and that the house was not vacant.
Issues: 1. Whether respondent No. 2's occupation of the house was regularized under Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. Whether the landlord had impliedly consented to respondent No. 2's occupation as a tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 provides that a licensee or tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Act shall be deemed to be an authorized licensee or tenant. The essential ingredients for the applicability of Section 14 are: (i) Occupation of the building before the commencement of the Act (5th July 1976); (ii) Occupation as a tenant with the consent of the landlord; (iii) No suit or proceeding for eviction pending on the relevant date (5th July 1976). 2. The expression "with the consent of the landlord" includes both express and implied consent. Implied consent may be inferred from the landlord's conduct, such as accepting rent from the occupant or acquiescing in the occupation for a prolonged period. In the present case, the landlord had accepted rent from respondent No. 2 for several years after the Sangh had vacated the premises, and there was no evidence to suggest that the Sangh continued to occupy the house after 1965. The landlord was also aware that respondent No. 2 was occupying the house in his own independent capacity. Therefore, the court held that the landlord had impliedly consented to respondent No. 2's occupation as a tenant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the landlord's writ petition, holding that the impugned order of the revisional court was justified and did not call for interference. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THIS is landlords writ petition arising out of the judgment and order dated 13. 4. 1983 passed by respondent No. 1. The dispute relates to a residential accommodation situate at 22. Subhash road, Dehradun. In the year 1952 the disputed accommodation was let out to the U. P. branch of the "harijan Sewak Sangh" (an organisation looking after the welfare of weaker section), through the Honarary Secretary, respondent No. 2 who besides running the office of the Sangh in the disputed accommodation also used a major portion of the same as his residence since the inception of the tenancy and paid rent to the landlord. The Sangh shifted its office lock stock and barrel from Dehradun to Lucknow in the year 1965 and left accommodation in question in the sole occupation of respondent No. 2. With the shifting of the office, the respondent No. 2 who was the Honorary Secretary ceased to have any concern with or interest in the activities of the sangh but he continued to be in occupation of the disputed house and himself paid rent to the landlord till the year 1977.
( 2 ) ON 6. 12. 1978, the respondent No. 2 moved an application before the Rent Control and eviction Officer. Dehradun (in short R. C. and E. O.) for making a formal order of allotment in his name after regularising his occupation under Section 14 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as he has been occupying the disputed house as tenant all throughout the period after the shifting of the office of the Sangh in the year 1965. A letter dated 7. 12. 1977 of the Sangh addressed to the R. C. and E. O. was also annexed with that application. Through that letter the Secretary of the Sangh informed the R. C. and E. O. that the Sangh had vacated the disputed premises in the year 1965 and thereafter it had no concern with it and the sangh would have no objection if the house was allotted to the respondent No. 2. The landlord petitioner also made an application for release of the house in question infer alia alleging that the occupation of respondent No. 2 was unauthorised and a deemed vacancy has occurred.
( 3 ) THE R. C. and E. O. by the order dated 19. 7. 78 rejected the landlords application for release holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no vacancy in law had occurred. This order was challenged by the landlord in revision. The revisional court set aside the order of the r. C. and E. O. and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the question of vacancy as in its opinion, nature of the occupation of respondent No. 2 was not properly and thoroughly investigated by the R. C. and E. G.
( 4 ) AFTER (he remand the R. C. and E. G. by the order dated 19. 10. 1982 held that the respondent no. 2 was not entitled to the prelection of Section 14 of the Act and his occupation in the disputed premises was unauthorised. By the same order, the house in question was released in favour of the landlord-petitioner. The respondent No. 2 challenged the said order in the revision before the respondent No. 1 and the revisional court by the order dated 13. 4. 83 set aside the order of the R. C. and E. O. dated 19. 10. 82 holding that the occupation of the respondent No. 2 stood regularised under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and consequently the building in question was not vacant. With these findings, the release order made in favour of the landlord has also been quashed. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.
( 5 ) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length.
( 6 ) THE moot question involved in the present writ petition is whether on the admitted and proved facts, the occupation of respondent No. 2 stood regularised under Section 14 of the Act?
( 7 ) SECTION 14 of the Act runs as under :
"notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licensee (within the meaning of Section 2a) or a tenant in occupation
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
