Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mehrotra, J.
DR.J.R.BHATIA - Appellant
Versus
SMT.VICTORIA RANI SAHIBA - Respondents
Writ Petn. 25 Of 1956
Decided On : 01/23/1957
RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 3 - ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER'S ORDER QUASHED - GROUNDS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION TO FILE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT - RELEVANCE TO OBJECT OF ACT - OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT ALLEGATIONS - NATURAL JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was allotted half portion of a bungalow by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The other half was occupied by the opposite party, who filed an application for permission to file a suit for the ejectment of the petitioner. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application, but the Additional Commissioner allowed the revision and granted permission. The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Additional Commissioner's order was quashed. The grounds on which the Additional Commissioner had granted permission to the opposite party were outside the scope of Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, having regard to the object of the legislation. The Additional Commissioner had also acted illegally in relying upon an application made by the opposite party during the course of the revision without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the allegations of fact made in that application.
Issues: 1. Whether the grounds on which the Additional Commissioner had granted permission to the opposite party were within the ambit and scope of Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act? 2. Whether sufficient opportunity had been given to the petitioner to rebut the allegations made by the opposite party that she observes pardah and is thus inconvenienced by the presence of a stranger in the compound?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 3 of the Act does not give unfettered powers to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to grant or refuse permission to a landlord to file a suit for ejectment. The power is to be exercised having regard to the object and the purpose underlying the whole Act. The object of the Rent Control Act is not only to regulate the letting of the houses or to control the rent but also to regulate the ejectment of the tenants. This is a legislation which had to be passed due to the scarcity of accommodation and consequently it will be going beyond the very object of the Act and defeating its purpose if powers were given to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to grant or refuse permission on their sweet-will unguided by the rules of conduct laid down in the Act itself. 2. The Additional Commissioner had acted illegally in relying upon an application made by the opposite party during the course of the revision without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the allegations of fact made in that application.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated the 28th of October, 1955 was quashed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner was allotted half portion of house No. 11, Thornhill Road, Allahabad, by the rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated the 27th of May 1952. This bungalow for the purposes of allotment was divided into two portions. The western portion was in occupation of one Sri S. D. Khanna and the other portion was in the occupation of Sri B. K. Nayar. The petitioner who has a large family occupied under the allotment order referred to above the eastern portion of the house. In January 1954 Sri S. D. Khanna vacated the premises and Rani saheba opposite party No. 1 occupied his portion. She is the owner of the house. Some dispute arose between the landlady and the petitioner which is not the subject-matter however of the present petition. On or about the 11th of November 1954 the opposite party No. 1 filed an application before the town Rationing Officer, Allahabad, for permission to file a suit for the ejectment of the petitioner from the half portion in his occupation. Objections were filed by the petitioner against the said application. The objections were supported by an affidavit filed by the petitioner. The application of the opposite party for permission to eject the petitioner was rejected by the rent Control and Eviction Officer, by his order dated the 25th of April 1955. A revision was filed against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the Additional Commissioner. During the pendency of the revision an application was filed by Rani Saheba before the additional Commissioner. According to the petitioner she by this application changed the nature of her case. In the application which was filed before the Additional Commissioner it was further alleged by her that a number of visitors were visiting the petitioner every day which caused great inconvenience to Rani Saheba. It was further alleged that she was an orthodox Vaishnava Hindu whereas the petitioner was a non-vegetarian and meals were cooked in his portion and she felt miserable. She further stated in that application that she had connections with the Royal family of Nepal and other distinguished Rajput families of India. The members of those families were often visiting her and she found it impossible for her to accommodate the guests in the small accommodation available to her. This application was filed in October 1955 not supported by any affidavit. The revision was allowed by the Additional Commissioner by his order dated the 28th of october 1955. This order of the Additional Commissioner has been challenged by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
( 2 ) SHRIMATI Victoria Rani Saheba, the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad, and the Rent control and Eviction Officer have been impleaded as the opposite parties to the petition. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Rani saheba. In the Counter-affidavit some of the allegations regarding the dispute have been denied. It is not necessary to refer to those facts. It is stated however in the counter-affidavit that Rani saheba was the owner of bungalow No. 1 Stanley Road which was acquired by the Government for the Fire-brigade Station. She thereupon insisted upon the President, Court of Wards, to purchase a bungalow for her and No. 11, Thornhill Road, was purchased by her for Rs. 77,000/-and on the suit of the Deputy Commissioner, Pratapgarh, Sri Khanna was ejected from the portion now occupied by her. The sale deed in her favour was executed on the 6th of November 1950. From the time she entered into this house she had a desire to occupy the other portion also. There are certain allegations about the default committed by the petitioner in the payment of rent but it is not necessary for the disposal of the present application, to deal with them. It is further alleged in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner promised to vacate the house. It is also alleged in the counter-affidavit
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
