ORDER.:- The petitioner is owner of premises No. 98, K.P. Kakkar Road, Allahabad. In the ground floor portion of this accommodation, there are two shops. One shop is in the possession of Purshottam Dass respondent No. 3. On the 1st April, 1972, Purshottam Dass moved an application for regularization of his tenancy over the disputed shop, alleging that he had been in possession of it as a tenant for the last thirteen years under the name and style of "Agarwal Paper Stores" and paying a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- per month. The monthly rent, according to respondent No. 3, was initially Rs. 80/- per month which was increased to Rs. 100/-per month, and then to Rs. 120/- per month and thereafter to Rs. 150/- per month. The landlord was now asking him to enhance the rent to Rs. 200/- per month. As no rent receipt was being issued by the landlord, a prayer was made that his possession be regularized by issuing an allotment order in his favour. The Chief Inspector inspected the premises and found the tenant in possession and made a report to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The respondent No. 3 in support of his allegation filed an affidavit before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 20-4-1972. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an allotment order in favour of the respondent No. 3 on 24-4-1972. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an objection against the aforesaid order on 15-5-1972, and prayed that the allotment be cancelled. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after hearing the parties, dismissed the objection on 7-8-1972.

The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order to the Additional District Judge. This appeal has been dismissed by order dated 21-2-1973. The present petition has been filed against this order as well as the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.

2. Before coming to the content raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to set out the case of the parties and the findings recorded by the subordinate authorities. The petitioner alleged in his application for cancellation of the allotment order that the petitioner and the allottee were close relations and the allottee's wife and his minor son started a partnership business in the premises. The partnership was dissolved on the 17th February, 1952. It is agreed that the allottee would vacate the premises within a month, or in default will pay compensation and penalty. It was averred that the allottee had failed to vacate the premises and obtained an allotment order by fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts. The allottee in his affidavit denied the partnership, and alleged that he was tenant of the disputed accommodation, to begin with, on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- per month, and was paying the rent regularly which had been shown in his income-tax return. This amount was enhanced to Rs. 100/-. In April, 1964, the allottee had agreed to enhancement of rent at Rupees 120/- per month. This amount was also shown in the income-tax return. On request for further enhancement of rent to Rs. 150/-, the allottee agreed to pay Rs. 150/- from 1-6-1966 onwards, and this rent was also shown in the income-tax. On the 11th November, 1971, the landlord sent a letter demanding rent at Rs. 200/- per month, which was not acceptable to the allottee, and he thereafter applied for allotment. The landlord, had accepted rent subsequent to the allotment order, at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. The case of the petitioner landlord that the allottee was a licencee was specifically denied, as also the allegations that the allotment order had been obtained on mis representation of facts and by practising fraud. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that there was no evidence on record to show that there was any partnership, except the dissolution deed which had no evidentiary value without the partnership deed. He also found that the letter dated 11th November, 1971, established that the landlord was receiving rent of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document