Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. S. Mathur, J.
SHAMSHER BAHADUR - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 500 Of 1960
Decided On : 03/26/1962
The Court held that the impugned order of the State Government, Annexure k, dated 8-2-1960 is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. The claimants for the lease of the accommodation were the petitioner and Messrs. Property Agents, respondent No. 3. No other person made any claim before the Rent control and Eviction Officer, nor before the State Government. The accommodation could not be allotted to respondent No. 3, and hence it was to be allotted to the petitioner, all the more, when there has been no contravention of Rules 7 and 8. Further-more, respondent No. 2 wanted the petitioner to occupy the premises as a sub-tenant and not as tenant. This was not possible, and consequently when the accommodation was ordered to be let to the petitioner, in the eye of law, it was allotted in accordance with the wishes of the landlord. The present is thus a case in which the State Government, could not, in any manner, modify the order of the Rent Control and eviction Officer; and hence it is but proper that the order, Annexure k, be quashed without leaving it open for the State Government to reconsider the matter.
Fact of the Case:
Messrs. Ganeshdas Ramgopal, respondent No. 2, is the owner of Halwasiya Court, hazratganj, Lucknow, a building which was constructed in 1939 or 1940; but according to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, material additions and alterations were made in the portion of the premises which is at present in the occupation of the petitioner for running the restaurant known as "royal Cafe". Their version is that the accommodation in dispute is, in the eye of law, a new construction not subject to the provisions of the Act. The version of the petitioner and the other respondents, on the other hand, is that it is not a new accommodation and is subject to the provisions of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned order of the State Government, Annexure k, dated 8-2-1960 is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. The claimants for the lease of the accommodation were the petitioner and Messrs. Property Agents, respondent No. 3. No other person made any claim before the Rent control and Eviction Officer, nor before the State Government. The accommodation could not be allotted to respondent No. 3, and hence it was to be allotted to the petitioner, all the more, when there has been no contravention of Rules 7 and 8. Further-more, respondent No. 2 wanted the petitioner to occupy the premises as a sub-tenant and not as tenant. This was not possible, and consequently when the accommodation was ordered to be let to the petitioner, in the eye of law, it was allotted in accordance with the wishes of the landlord. The present is thus a case in which the State Government, could not, in any manner, modify the order of the Rent Control and eviction Officer; and hence it is but proper that the order, Annexure k, be quashed without leaving it open for the State Government to reconsider the matter.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order of the State Government, Annexure k, dated 8-2-1960 is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed? 2. Whether the claimants for the lease of the accommodation were the petitioner and Messrs. Property Agents, respondent No. 3? 3. Whether any other person made any claim before the Rent control and Eviction Officer, nor before the State Government? 4. Whether the accommodation could not be allotted to respondent No. 3, and hence it was to be allotted to the petitioner? 5. Whether there has been no contravention of Rules 7 and 8? 6. Whether respondent No. 2 wanted the petitioner to occupy the premises as a sub-tenant and not as tenant? 7. Whether this is a case in which the State Government, could not, in any manner, modify the order of the Rent Control and eviction Officer?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the impugned order of the State Government, Annexure k, dated 8-2-1960 is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. The claimants for the lease of the accommodation were the petitioner and Messrs. Property Agents, respondent No. 3. No other person made any claim before the Rent control and Eviction Officer, nor before the State Government. The accommodation could not be allotted to respondent No. 3, and hence it was to be allotted to the petitioner, all the more, when there has been no contravention of Rules 7 and 8. Further-more, respondent No. 2 wanted the petitioner to occupy the premises as a sub-tenant and not as tenant. This was not possible, and consequently when the accommodation was ordered to be let to the petitioner, in the eye of law, it was allotted in accordance with the wishes of the landlord. The present is thus a case in which the State Government, could not, in any manner, modify the order of the Rent Control and eviction Officer; and hence it is but proper that the order, Annexure k, be quashed without leaving it open for the State Government to reconsider the matter.
Final Decision: The Court held that the impugned order of the State Government, Annexure k, dated 8-2-1960 is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. The claimants for the lease of the accommodation were the petitioner and Messrs. Property Agents, respondent No. 3. No other person made any claim before the Rent control and Eviction Officer, nor before the State Government. The accommodation could not be allotted to respondent No. 3, and hence it was to be allotted to the petitioner, all the more, when there has been no contravention of Rules 7 and 8. Further-more, respondent No. 2 wanted the petitioner to occupy the premises as a sub-tenant and not as tenant. This was not possible, and consequently when the accommodation was ordered to be let to the petitioner, in the eye of law, it was allotted in accordance with the wishes of the landlord. The present is thus a case in which the State Government, could not, in any manner, modify the order of the Rent Control and eviction Officer; and hence it is but proper that the order, Annexure k, be quashed without leaving it open for the State Government to reconsider the matter.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Shamsher Bahadur for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari, or a like writ or direction, to quash all the proceedings leading to and including the order dated 19-2-1959, Annexure f to the affidavit, of the Town rationing Officer / District Supply Officer, Lucknow (to be referred hereinafter as the Rent control and Eviction Officer), respondent No. 4 who was exercising the powers of the District magistrate under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act), and also the order of the State Government dated 8-2-1960, Annexure k to the affidavit, whereby the order dated 19-2-1959 was re-established. The State Government has been impleaded as respondent No. 1 by the name of the State of Uttar Pradesh. A request was also made for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No. 4 not to give effect to the order of the State Government and to continue to treat the petitioner as a tenant of the premises in question in pursuance of his order dated 17-1-1959, Annexure e to the affidavit. After the proceeding under Section 7-B of the Act was initiated by M/s. Property agents, respondent No. 3, the petitioner had the petition amended by impleading Munsif (South), Lucknow, as respondent No. 5, and by including a prayer for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the above proceeding under Section 7-B, and also for a writ of prohibition to direct the Munsif not to take any further action in the proceeding.
( 2 ) IN the writ petition serious allegations were made against the conduct of Sri Jag Mohan Singh negi, the then Minister Incharge of the department. He was consequently impleaded as respondent No. 6, so that no order may be passed without giving him a hearing. Sri Negi filed a counter-affidavit, but for purposes of the present proceeding it is not necessary to give the details of the allegations made and the versions of the respondents on this point. It may simply be mentioned that according to the petitioner, respondent No. 6 had acted arbitrarily with a view to help Messrs. Ganeshdas Ramgopal, respondent No. 2, in recovering rent in excess of the reasonable rent as was not permissible under the law. Sri Negi and also respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have denied these allegations and their version is that he had throughout acted impartially without an attempt to show favour to anyone.
( 3 ) IN the writ petition the petitioner did not give particuars of the lease said to have been executed by Messrs. Ganeshdas Ramgopal, respondent No. 2, in favour of Messrs. Property agents, respondent No. 3, and the sub-lease of the same premises obtained by the petitioner from respondent No. 3. Whether this omission is fatal to the present petition shall be commented upon later. However, all the facts as appear from the affidavits shall be detailed in the very beginning of the judgment so that the full history may come on the record without any unnecessary repetition. Most of the facts are not in dispute, and consequently matters not in controversy shall be reproduced as they are. While those in controversy-shall be referred to by giving the versions of both the parties.
( 4 ) MESSRS. Ganeshdas Ramgopal, respondent No. 2, is the owner of Halwasiya Court, hazratganj, Lucknow, a building which was constructed in 1939 or 1940; but according to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, material additions and alterations were made in the portion of the premises which is at present in the occupation of the petitioner for running the restaurant known as "royal Cafe". Their version is that the accommodation in dispute is, in the eye of law, a new construction not subject to the provisions of the Act. The version of the petitioner and the other respondents, on the other hand, is that it is not a new accommodation and is subject to the provisions of the Act. It was apparently for this reason that
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
