Back
Allahbad High Court
V.BHARGAVA,G.C.MATHUR
Property Agents - Appellant
Versus
Shainsher Bahadur - Respondent
Decided On : 04/28/1964
U.P. CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT, 1947 - SECTION 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7-A, 7-B, 7-F, 8 - RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER - JURISDICTION - REVIEW OF ORDER - QUASI-JUDICIAL ORDER - VALIDITY OF LEASE - SUB-LEASE - ALLOTMENT OF ACCOMMODATION - REVISION BY STATE GOVERNMENT - LOCUS STANDI OF APPELLANT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Firm Property Agents, entered into a lease agreement with respondent No. 3, Firm Ganesh Das Ram Gopal, for a building known as Halwasiya Court in Lucknow. The appellant then sublet the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur, respondent No. 1. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer (RCEO) issued notices to respondent No. 3 and Shamsher Bahadur under Sections 7-A(1) and 7(2) of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (the Act), respectively. The RCEO initially directed respondent No. 3 to let out the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur but later canceled that order and directed the appellant to sublet the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur. The RCEO then restored the initial order directing respondent No. 3 to let out the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur. The State Government, on revision, set aside the RCEO's order and restored the order directing the appellant to sublet the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur. Shamsher Bahadur filed a writ petition challenging the State Government's order and the RCEO's proceedings under Section 7-B of the Act. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the State Government's order and the proceedings under Section 7-B. The appellant filed a special appeal against the High Court's judgment.
Finding of the Court:
1. The RCEO's order of January 17, 1959, directing respondent No. 3 to let out the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur, was a quasi-judicial order and could not be reviewed or canceled by the RCEO. 2. The RCEO's order of February 19, 1959, canceling the order of January 17, 1959, and directing the appellant to sublet the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur, was void and ineffective. 3. The State Government had no power or jurisdiction to restore the void order of February 19, 1959. 4. The lease executed by respondent No. 3 in favor of the appellant was valid as between them but not upon the rent control authorities. 5. The sub-lease executed by the appellant in favor of Shamsher Bahadur was invalid and ineffective as it was made in defiance of the provisions of Section 7(3) of the Act. 6. The appellant had no locus standi to maintain the special appeal as it had submitted to the order of the RCEO dated March 19, 1959, and the order of the State Government dated February 8, 1960, was not obtained at the instance of the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the RCEO had jurisdiction to review or cancel the order of January 17, 1959, directing respondent No. 3 to let out the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur? 2. Whether the RCEO's order of February 19, 1959, canceling the order of January 17, 1959, and directing the appellant to sublet the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur, was valid? 3. Whether the State Government had power or jurisdiction to restore the void order of February 19, 1959? 4. Whether the lease executed by respondent No. 3 in favor of the appellant was valid? 5. Whether the sub-lease executed by the appellant in favor of Shamsher Bahadur was valid? 6. Whether the appellant had locus standi to maintain the special appeal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An order passed by the RCEO under Section 7(2) of the Act is a quasi-judicial order and cannot be reviewed or canceled by the RCEO. 2. An order passed by the RCEO under Section 7(3) of the Act is not a quasi-judicial order and can be reviewed or canceled by the RCEO. 3. The State Government has no power or jurisdiction to restore a void order passed by the RCEO. 4. A lease executed in violation of a general order made by the District Magistrate under Section 7(2) of the Act is valid as between the lessor and the lessee but not upon the rent control authorities. 5. A sub-lease executed in violation of the provisions of Section 7(3) of the Act is invalid and ineffective. 6. A party who has submitted to an order of the RCEO and the State Government has no locus standi to maintain a special appeal challenging those orders.
Final Decision: The special appeal was dismissed with costs.
2. Firm Ganesh Das Ram Gopal, respondent No. 3, is the proprietor of a building known as Halwasiya Court situate at Hazratganj Lucknow. The ground floor of this building consisted of a big hall and two small shops. The big hall was in the occupation of respondent No. 3 but the two shops had been rented out. After the tenants of the two shops vacated them the respondent No. 3 demolished the partition walls and included the shops also in the hall. The original building had admittedly been constructed long before the Act came into force. It appears that the respondent No. 3, after the modification of the accommodation, did not desire to occupy it itself and wanted to let it out. The respondent No. 3 did not, as required by S. 7(1) of the Act, give intimation of the vacancy or intended vacancy to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and thereby rendered itself liable to prosecution under S. 8 of the Act. Without giving such information and without any allotment order having been passed in respect of this accommodation, the respondent No. 3, on July 31, 1958, executed a lease for three years in respect of this accommodation in favour of the appellant. Firm Property Agents. This lease provided for payment of a rent of Rs. 500 per month by the
lessee and it also contained a clause for renewal of the lease for a further period of three years. It may be mentioned here that this lease deed was executed by respondent No. 3 but it was not signed by or on behalf of the appellant.
On October 12, 1958, the appellant executed a sub-lease of this accommodation in favour of Shamsher Bahadur for five years at a rent of Rs. 1,650 per month. It is important to notice that even at this stage the appellant did not obtain the permission of the District Magistrate as required by S. 7(3) of the Act for subletting the accommodation and rendered itself liable to prosecution under S. 8 of the Act. When the Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to know that Shamsher Bahadur had entered into possession without any allotment order from him, he, on December S. 1958, issued a notice to respondent No. 3 to show cause why it should not be prosecuted under S. 8 of the Act for failing to notify the vacancy. On the same date he issued a notice to Shamsher Bahadur under S. 7-A(1) of the Act to show cause why he should not be evicted from the accommodation. In reply to the notice received by it, the respondent No. 3, on December 11, 1958, wrote to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer stating that the accommodation was a new construction which did not fall within the purview of the Act and that as such no permission of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was necessary for inducting a tenant. On December 22, 1938, the respondent No. 3 again wrote to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer stating that if he was pleased to hold that its contention made in the previous letter was not correct, the accommodation may be allotted.
In response to the notice under S. 7-A(1) received by him, Shamsher Bahadur, on December 20, 1958, wrote to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer stating that the landlord had assured him that the accommodation was a new construction which was exempted from the operation of the Act and that on that representation he had accepted a lease of the same without an allotment order and prayed that the notice be withdrawn and an allotment order made in his favour. Neither the respondent No. 3 nor Shamsher Bahadur gave any information to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer about the lease executed on July 31, 1958, or about the sub-lease executed on October 12, 1958. After considering the replies of respondent
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
