Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Nasirullah Beg and V. D. Bhargava, JJ.
SMT.ABIDA BEGAM AND ORS. - Appellant
Versus
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER, LUCKNOW AND ANR. - Respondents
Special Appeal 15 Of 1957
Decided On : 03/23/1959
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION ACT - RULES 6 AND 7 - ALLOTMENT OF ACCOMMODATION - LANDLORD'S RIGHT TO OCCUPY - CONSULTATION WITH LANDLORD - DISCRETION OF RENT CONTROL OFFICER - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SECTION 16 OF THE ACT - BAR TO SUIT - NOTICE UNDER SECTION 80, C. P. C. - MANDAMUS - RELIEF AGAINST RENT CONTROL OFFICER.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a landlord, filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant No. 2, Ram Khelawan, from obtaining possession of a room in dispute, under an allotment order passed in his favour by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lucknow, and an order of permanent injunction restraining the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, defendant No. 1, from enforcing the order of allotment in favour of Ram Khelawan. The suit was dismissed by both the courts below as well as by the learned single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was passed without compliance of the Rules 6 and 7, which were mandatory and binding upon the Rent Control Officer. The court also held that Section 16 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act did not bar the suit as it only barred the calling in question of orders made under the Act as regards their reasonableness or practicability, but not their legality. The court further held that the suit was not maintainable against the Rent Control Officer as no notice under Section 80, C. P. C. had been given, but the court could grant relief against him under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was passed in compliance with Rules 6 and 7 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act? 2. Whether Section 16 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act barred the suit? 3. Whether the suit was maintainable against the Rent Control Officer without notice under Section 80, C. P. C.?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Rules 6 and 7 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act were mandatory and binding upon the Rent Control Officer. The court found that the Rent Control Officer had not complied with these rules before passing the order of allotment in favour of Ram Khelawan. Therefore, the order was passed without jurisdiction and was illegal. 2. The court held that Section 16 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act did not bar the suit as it only barred the calling in question of orders made under the Act as regards their reasonableness or practicability, but not their legality. The court found that the plaintiff was challenging the legality of the order of allotment, and therefore, Section 16 did not bar the suit. 3. The court held that the suit was not maintainable against the Rent Control Officer as no notice under Section 80, C. P. C. had been given. However, the court held that it could grant relief against the Rent Control Officer under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the matter involved a public duty and the Rent Control Officer had acted illegally.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the courts below, and issued a mandamus to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lucknow to act in accordance with law and direct that defendant No. 2 be restrained from taking possession of the property.
( 1 ) THIS is a special appeal against the decision of a learned single judge of this Court in a second appeal filed by the plaintiff, who had filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant No. 2, ram Khelawan, from obtaining possession of the room in dispute, under an allotment order passed in his favour by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lucknow, and an order of permanent injunction restraining the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, defendant No. 1, from enforcing the order of allotment in favour of Ram Khelawan.
( 2 ) THE suit was dismissed by both the courts below as well as by the learned single Judge. Hence this special appeal.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff, Abban Saheb, came on the allegation that he. was the owner of a certain house of which the room in dispute was a part. He was in occupation of the entire house except this room. It has previously been let out to one Nand Kishore about 12 or 13 years back from the date of the suit. After some protracted litigation the appellant was able to get a decree of ejectment as against Nand Kishore and after execution of the decree he obtained actual possession of the room on 13-8- 1950.
( 4 ) ON the next day. e. , on 14-8-1950 the plaintiff informed the Rent Control and Eviction officer of the vacancy and prayed that the room should be released in his favour, as he required it for his own needs. It is contended that one Shyam Sunder made on the same day an application that there was a boy Ram Khelawan whom Shyam Sunder knew and, therefore, he requested the district Magistrate that the room should be allotted to Ram Khelawan because Ram Khelawan wanted to start a betel shop. On the same day the Rent Control and Eviction Officer asked the landlord to supply the particulars of the accommodation.
( 5 ) ON 16-8-1950 the plaintiff supplied the particulars and again made a request that he genuinely needed the accommodation for his personal use and it should be allotted to him. Thereafter, according to the plaintiff, he was never asked to produce any evidence about the bona fide needs of the plaintiff, but, on the other hand, on 19-8-1950 the room was allotted to Ram Khelawan and on 24-8-1950 intimation to this effect was communicated to the plaintiff. The plaintiff on the next day, that is, 25-8-1950 filed the suit.
( 6 ) ON behalf of the defendant No. 1, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer it was contended that he had acted on behalf of the Executive Government and the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 C. P. C. , that the suit was barred under Sections 13 and 16 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act III of 1947), that the allotment order had been validly passed in favour of the defendant No. 2 when the accommodation fell vacant and the plaintiff had no cause of action against defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 did not file any written statement though he was present throughout the proceedings. The trial court and the lower appellate court held that the suit was bad for want of notice as against defendant No. 1, and the first two courts as well as the learned single Judge has held that the suit was barred under Section 16 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act.
( 7 ) IN appeal it has been contended that the order passed by the courts below was in direct defiance and in breach of the rules made under the U. P. Rent Control and Eviction Act which were binding upon the Rent Control Officer. Particular reliance was placed on Rules 6 and 7 made under the Act which are as follows : -" 6. Occupation by landlord : -- When the District Magistrate is- satisfied that an accommodation which has fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant is bona fide needed by the landlord for his own personal occupation the District Magistrate may permit the landlord to occupy it himself. 7. Allotment of a portion of accommodation: --Where a portion of accommodation falls vacant and the owner is in occupation of another portion thereof, the Di
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
