Back
1998 Supreme(All) 1152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Narain, J.
JAGDISH PRASAD AND OTHERS - Appellant
Versus
MAHARAJ KASHI RAJ DHARAM KARYA NIDHI - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 9706 Of 1982
Decided On : 10/12/1998
Rama Devi Gupta
A caretaker without authority to let out accommodation cannot let out a building simply on the ground that he was appointed as caretaker.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION ACT, 1972 - SECTION 3(J), 11, 13, 16 - UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION - CARETAKER WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO LET OUT ACCOMMODATION - RENT RECEIPTS ISSUED BY CARETAKER IRRELEVANT - DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION FOR DECLARING VACANCY - INJUNCTION ORDER BY CIVIL COURT - SEPARATE UNITS IN BUILDING - COMMON DEFENCE - DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION WITH COST.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were declared as unauthorized occupants of the disputed premises by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The landlord, respondent No. 1, filed an application for release of the premises, which was granted. The petitioners challenged the orders in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were inducted as tenants by a caretaker, Rama Shankar Lal, who was not authorized to let out the accommodation. The court also found that the letting of the accommodation was in violation of Section 11 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1972, which prohibits letting out any building except in pursuance of an allotment order issued under Section 16 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the caretaker had the authority to let out the accommodation? 2. Whether the letting of the accommodation was in violation of Section 11 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1972? 3. Whether the delay in filing the application for declaring vacancy was fatal? 4. Whether the injunction order by the Civil court barred the Rent Control and Eviction Officer from proceeding? 5. Whether the separate units in the building required separate proceedings for declaration of vacancy?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the caretaker did not have the authority to let out the accommodation, as he was only appointed to look after the property and had no specific power to let out any portion of the building. 2. The court held that the letting of the accommodation was in violation of Section 11 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1972, as there was no allotment order issued under Section 16 of the Act. 3. The court held that the delay in filing the application for declaring vacancy was not fatal, as the landlord had taken appropriate steps to declare the disputed accommodation as vacant soon after the termination of the caretaker's services. 4. The court held that the injunction order by the Civil court did not prohibit the Rent Control and Eviction Officer from proceeding in accordance with law in exercise of the power under Section 16 of the Act. 5. The court held that the separate units in the building did not require separate proceedings for declaration of vacancy, as the defence of the petitioners in all the cases was common.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000 payable to respondent No. 1.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 18. 11. 1981 passed by the Rent Control; and Eviction Officer declaring the disputed premises as vacant and thereafter the order of release dated 30. 1. 1982 in favour of the landlord respondent and the order of the revisional authority dated 21. 7. 1982 affirming the said order in revision.
( 2 ) THE dispute relates to the house known as Jamuna Mahal, Katghar, Allahabad, Maharaj Kashi raj Dharam Karya Nidhi, Durg Ram Nagar, Varanasi was its owner. One Mangala Prasad on behalf of respondent No. 1 filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation alleging that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants of the various portions of the house in question. Ramesh Chandra, Manager of the trust, respondent No. 1, appointed as caretaker Rama shankar Lal Srivastava on 26. 4. 1979 on monthly salary of Rs. 150 but he was not given any power to induct any tenant. The property was to be utilised for the purpose of the trust. The services of Rama Shankar Lal were terminated on 13. 4. 1980. He hardly worked for one year as caretaker on behalf of the Manager and he was removed as his work and conduct was not satisfactory and in his place one Raghunath Prasad was appointed. The various portions were permitted to be occupied by Rama Shankar Lal who was not authorised to induct any person. He prayed that the disputed accommodation be declared as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. The Rent Control Inspector submitted a report and found that the accommodation was in unauthorised occupation of the petitioners and other persons. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 18. 11. 1981 declared the disputed accommodation as vacant. Respondent No. 1 had filed application for release of the disputed premises. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer considering the bona fide need and taking into consideration all other aspects released the disputed accommodation in favour of respondent No. 1 on 30. 1. 1982. The petitioners preferred a revision against the said order. The revision was dismissed on 21. 7. 1982. The petitioners have preferred the writ petition against these orders.
( 3 ) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners were inducted as tenant by Sri rama Shankar Lal who was holding the power-of-attorney on behalf of respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the petitioners were tenants of the disputed accommodation and not as unauthorised occupants. He has placed reliance on definition of the word landlord as defined under Section 3 (j) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which defines landlord as under : "landlord, in relation to a building, means a person to whom its rent is or if the building were let, would be, payable and includes, except in Clause (g), the agent or attorney, or such person. " it is contended that agent or attorney of landlord shall also be treated as landlord under the provisions of the Act. He has placed reliance upon the decision Barman Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1982 ARC 754, wherein it has been held that the nomination made by attorney of the landlord was valid as he was also landlord within the meaning of Section 3 (j) of the Act. It has, however, to be examined as to whether Rama Shankar Lal was holding the power-of-attorney conferring the power on him to let out the accommodation. The petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to prove that Rama Shankar Lal had any power-of-attorney conferring power on him to let out any portion of the building. Mangala Prasad as Mukhtar-E-Aatn on behalf of respondent No. 1 filed application on 10. 6. 1981 for declaring the disputed accommodation as vacant. In paragraph 3 of the application. It was stated by him that one ramesh Chandra who was acting as Manager
