Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Raghubar Dayal and Agarwala, JJ.
PREM SHANKAR PANDAYA - Appellant
Versus
U.P.PROVINCIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 354 Of 1950
Decided On : 08/19/1952
RENT CONTROL - U. P. (TEMPORARY) CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT, 1947 - SECTIONS 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 7B - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 19(1)(F) - ALLOTMENT OF VACANT HOUSE - POWER OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - REASONABLENESS OF RESTRICTION ON RIGHT TO OCCUPY OWN PROPERTY.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Prem Shankar Pandaya, owned a house in Chowk Banaras, which he had let to the Bharat Bank Ltd. of Delhi for five years, with the lease expiring in January 1958. In October 1950, he persuaded the bank to vacate the house as he wanted to use it for his business. On 15th November 1950, he applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (RCEO) for allotment of the house, stating that he needed it for his personal use. However, the RCEO, in ignorance of the applicant's application, allotted the house to Chunni Lal and another person on 16th November 1950.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, empowered the District Magistrate to permit the landlord to occupy the accommodation himself and not to let it when the District Magistrate considered that desirable. The court also held that the restriction imposed on the owner's right to occupy the house after it is vacated by a tenant was a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public and that therefore the provisions of Section 7 (1) (a) of the Act did not contravene Article 19 (1), Sub-clause (f) of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, empowered the District Magistrate to permit the landlord to occupy the accommodation himself and not to let it? 2. Whether the restriction imposed on the owner's right to occupy the house after it is vacated by a tenant was a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 7 (1) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, to include the power of the District Magistrate to permit the landlord to occupy the accommodation himself and not to let it. The court reasoned that the expression "not to let such accommodation to any person" implied the power to allow the landlord to occupy the accommodation himself. 2. The court held that the restriction imposed on the owner's right to occupy the house after it is vacated by a tenant was a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public. The court reasoned that the scheme of the Act was to control the letting of accommodation in order to address the shortage of accommodation and that the restriction was necessary to prevent landlords from withdrawing accommodation from the market for their own use.
Final Decision: The court rejected the applicant's application and vacated the interim injunction.
( 1 ) PREM Shankar Pandaya applies for the issue of directions, orders or writs in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari declaring that the order of allotment passed on 16-3-1950 in respect of house No. ck/36/7 situate in Chowk Banaras was invalid and illegal, and directing the opposite parties, viz. , the U. P. Provincial Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Shri Chunni Lal allottees and the Assistant Kent Control and Eviction Officer, Banaras, and the Rent Control? and eviction Officer, Banaras, not to take any steps or action on the basis of the allotment order,
( 2 ) THE facts leading to this application are that the applicant is the owner of the house in suit and had let it to the Bharat Bank Ltd. , of Delhi. He himself occupied another rented house. The house was let in 1943 under a lease for five years. The lease was renewed in 1948 and was to expire in january 1958. The applicant, however, persuaded the rentee, the Bharat Bank Ltd. of Delhi, to vacate the house in October 1950 as he wanted it for the purpose of his business. The Bharat bank vacated the house on 31-104950.
( 3 ) ON 15-11-1950 the applicant sent a notice to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Banaras, stating therein that he was staying in a rented house and felt great inconvenience there and that he would be staying in and occupying the whole building for his personal use. He requested the rent Control and Eviction Officer to allot the house in suit to him. The Bent Control and eviction Officer, however, allotted the house to opposite-parties NOS. 1 and 2 on 16-11-1960 in ignorance of the applicants application of 15-11-1950. The applicant then filed the present application on 28-11-1950.
( 4 ) THE affidavit filed on behalf of Chunni Lall, opposite-party no. 2 mentions that he had applied for the allotment of the house on 4-11-1950 and that the applicant did not really need the house and that his claim that he needed the house for business purposes was not bona fide. It further mentioned that the application dated 15th November was to be heard by the Rent Control and eviction Officer on 1st December but further proceedings were stayed on account of the interim injunction order from this Court. The order issued by this Court restrained either party from occupying the house and did not directly order the stay of the hearing of the applicants application.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant attacked the legality of the allotment order on two grounds. The first contention is that the Rent Control and Eviction Act does not provide for the house owners not occupying his own house but provided for the control of the letting of that house by the house owner to any other person as to tenant besides its providing for matters relating to rent and eviction. The second contention is that if the Act be held to provide for the house owners not occupying his own house himself the Act to that extent is ultra vires as it contravenes the provisions of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution of India. . "we do not agree with either of the contentions and therefore do not see any force in this application.
( 6 ) THE Preamble of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Bent and Eviction Act, 3 of 1947 says :
"an Act to provide for the continuance during a limited period, of powers to control the letting and the rent of residential and non- residential accommodation and to prevent the eviction of tenants therefrom. And whereas due to the shortage of accommodation in the United Provinces it is expedient to provide for the continuance during a limited period of powers to control the letting and the rent of such accommodation and to prevent the eviction of tenants therefrom ; it is hereby enacted as follows:"
The expression, control of letting of accommodation, is wide enough to cover the case of a house owners occupying the house himself when it falls vacant. It may be mentioned that the scheme of the Act is that the Bent Control and Eviction Officer does not e
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
