Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. D. OJHA, A. N. VERMA, A. N. DIKSHITA
TALIB HUSAIN - Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NAINITAL - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 7782 Of 1982
Decided On : 10/03/1985
U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING RENTS AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - S. 16(1)(B) - PROSPECTIVE ALLOTTEE - RIGHT TO CONTEST RELEASE APPLICATION - NO RIGHT.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute relates to the second storey of a building situate at Haldwani. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the landlords of that building which was in the tenancy of one Mohd. Siddique who vacated the same somewhere in 1979. It is alleged by the landlords that on Mohd. Siddiques vacating the accommodation the petitioner unlawfully and forcibly occupied the same. On July 12, 1979 the father of the present landlords applied for the release of this accommodation under S. 16 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rents and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) on the ground that he was an old man suffering from several diseases and on account of want of accommodation he was residing at Kaladhangi, a small village, where proper medical treatment was not possible. Consequently he wanted to shift to Haldwani to settle his son, the present respondent No. 4, in some business as well as for his medical treatment. After due enquiry the accommodation was declared vacant under the aforesaid Act on July 9, 1979. It appears that the petitioners applied for allotment of the accommodation and also claimed that they were lawful tenants of the disputed accommodation. They also contested the landlords application for release. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated April 14, 1981 after considering the evidence of both the parties, held that the need of the landlord was genuine and he bona fide required the accommodation for his own personal use and occupation. The release application was consequently allowed. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged that order by way of a revision under S. 18 of the Act which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nainital by an order dated July 2, 1972 affirming the findings of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Thereafter the petitioner filed this petition.
Finding of the Court:
The prospective allottee has no right to file an objection and contest the application for release made by the landlord for a building or a part thereof even after the deletion of the original R. 13 (4) of the Rules framed under the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
Issues: Whether a prospective allottee has a right to file an objection and contest the application for release made by the landlord for a building or a part thereof after the deletion of the original R. 13 (4) of the Rules under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The scheme of the Act and the rules framed thereunder clearly suggest that the Legislature has recognized and conferred on the landlord a preferential right in a case where the building has fallen vacant. 2. Unlike S. 21 which confers on the landlord a right to apply for release of an accommodation which is in occupation of a tenant subject to a comparison of relative hardship likely to be suffered by the landlord and the tenant, significantly neither S. 16 nor the rules framed under the Act envisage any comparison between the landlords need and that of the prospective allottees in a case where the landlord applies for release under S. 16 (1) (b). 3. The right of a prospective allottee is not an absolute right. It is contingent upon, firstly, the accommodation being vacant and, secondly, the building being available for allotment. 4. Rule 13 (4), as it stands at present reinforces this conclusion. It provides that no allotment in respect of a building covered by an application under S. 16 (1) (b) shall be made unless such application is rejected. The right of a prospective allottee to have his application considered hence arises only after the rejection of the landlords application under S. 16 (1) (b ). 5. So far, therefore, as the scheme of the Act and the rules framed thereunder is concerned, the same, in our opinion, clearly points to the conclusion that a prospective allottee has no right of objection against the release application filed under S. 16 (1) (b ).
Final Decision: The question referred to us is answered in the negative and it is held that the prospective allottee has no right to file an objection and contest the application for release made by the landlord for a building or a part thereof even after the deletion of the original R. 13 (4) of the Rules framed under the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
( 1 ) A learned single Judge finding that there was a conflict of opinion between various decisions of this Court rendered by Division Benches and single Judges referred the following question for consideration by a larger Bench :"whether a prospective allottee has a right to file an objection and contest the application for release made by the landlord for a building or a part thereof after the deletion of the original R. 13 (4) of the Rules under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972?"
( 2 ) THIS Bench has been constituted for resolving the above controversy. Since only a specific question has been referred to us we do not consider it necessary to set out the facts of this case in detail. We will, however, mention the relevant facts as briefly as possible with a view to indicating the circumstances in which the question has arisen in the instant case. The dispute relates to the second storey of a building situate at Haldwani. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the landlords of that building which was in the tenancy of one Mohd. Siddique who vacated the same somewhere in 1979. It is alleged by the landlords that on Mohd. Siddiques vacating the accommodation the petitioner unlawfully and forcibly occupied the same. On July 12, 1979 the father of the present landlords applied for the release of this accommodation under S. 16 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rents and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) on the ground that he was an old man suffering from several diseases and on account of want of accommodation he was residing at Kaladhangi, a small village, where proper medical treatment was not possible. Consequently he wanted to shift to Haldwani to settle his son, the present respondent No. 4, in some business as well as for his medical treatment. After due enquiry the accommodation was declared vacant under the aforesaid Act on July 9, 1979. It appears that the petitioners applied for allotment of the accommodation and also claimed that they were lawful tenants of the disputed accommodation. They also contested the landlords application for release. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated April 14, 1981 after considering the evidence of both the parties, held that the need of the landlord was genuine and he bona fide required the accommodation for his own personal use and occupation. The release application was consequently allowed. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged that order by way of a revision under S. 18 of the Act which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nainital by an order dated July 2, 1972 affirming the findings of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Thereafter the petitioner filed this petition.
( 3 ) ONE of the points raised by the petitioners is that being prospective allottees they have a right to contest the landlords release application and the opinion of the Courts below that as prospective allottees the petitioners do not have any locus standi is not correct.
( 4 ) THE petition has been contested by the landlords who have controverted the various allegations as well as the legal submissions made by the petitioner. The landlords contend, in the alternative, that, in any case, the objection of the petitioners having been considered on merits and rejected by the Court below, it is unnecessary to go into the legal controversy which the learned single Judge has referred.
( 5 ) SINCE the entire case has not been referred to us, we have no option but to consider the specific legal issue referred by the learned single Judge even if, as contended by the landlord, the question is of academic importance only in so far as the facts of this case are concerned.
( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy we will first briefly survey the corresponding provisions of the predecessor enactment of the present Statute. That was U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Though described as a temporary enactment its life
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
