Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Shitla Prasad Srivastava
MUNNA LAI
Versus
R C E O MATHURA
Decided On : 29 May 1998
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39088 of 1994
RENT CONTROL ACT - APPLICABILITY - U. P. ACT NO. 13 OF 1972 - SECTIONS 12, 15, 16, 30, 34 - RULES 8, 27 - INTERPRETATION - ADMISSION BY TENANT - EFFECT - MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT REGISTER - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (R. C. E. O.) declaring the vacancy of three shops occupied by him. The landlord had filed applications under Sections 12/16 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (the Act), claiming that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant and that the shops were vacant. The petitioner contested the applications, arguing that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the shops and that he was a tenant paying rent.
Finding of the Court:
The R. C. E. O. held that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the building in question and that the petitioner's tenancy was illegal under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act. The court found that the petitioner had admitted the applicability of the Act by depositing rent under Section 30 of the Act and that the Commissioner's report, which found that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant, was not perverse.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable to the shops in question. 2. Whether the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant of the shops. 3. Whether the Commissioner's report was perverse.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's admission of the applicability of the Act by depositing rent under Section 30 of the Act was binding on him and could not be explained away by claiming that it was filed on wrong advice. 2. The court found that the Commissioner's report was not perverse as it was based on evidence, including the petitioner's admission, and that the petitioner had not provided any other evidence to prove that the construction of the shops was new. 3. The court also held that the municipal assessment register was not relevant to the issue of the date of construction of the shops, as the petitioner had admitted the applicability of the Act by depositing rent under Section 30.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no illegality in the order passed by the R. C. E. O. for declaration of the vacancy.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 23-11-1994 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura, hereinafter referred to as R. C. E. O. only. The judgment of the R. C. E. O. has been filed as Annexure 21 to the writ petition. The second relief claimed by the petitioner is for issuing mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the pos session of the petitioner.
2. The relevant facts for the purpose of the present writ petition are that the dispute arose in respect of shop Nos. 1, 2 and 5 situated in Mohalla Goverdhan Dar-waza, Brindaban. The petitioner was oc cupying these shops as a tenant. Landlord Mool Kishore Goswami filed three ap plications separately in respect of each shop under Sections 12/16 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter, referred to as the Act only. In these applications it were mentioned that provisions of the Act are applicable and the petitioner is an un authorised occupant as he is living without any order of allotment. Therefore, legally the shops are vacant. It was also stated that the son of the landlord is unemployed, therefore, he wants to establish his son in theshopno. 1.
3. The second applications was filed in respect of shop No. 2. In this application the landlord stated that he is a Govern ment servant and his retirement is near at hand and he wants to establish some business in shop Nos. 2 and 5 after his retire ment. The third application was in respect of shop No. 5 mainly on the same ground and it was prayed in all these applications that the vacancy be declared and then it may be released in favour of the landlord.
4. The petitioner contested these ap plication on number of grounds. The main grounds of defence was that the petitioner is not an unauthorised occupant of the shop in question; provisions of the Act are not applicable to the shop in question. It is stated that he was a tenant and was paying rent to the landlord but when he refused to accept the rent was remitted through money order which was also not accepted by the landlord and then the petitioner deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act, He also denied that the landlords son is unemployed. In additional plea petitioner has stated that shop Nos. 1 and 2 are combined shops and with the consent of the landlord the petitioner is a tenant of those shops on payment of rent of Rs. 200/-per month. The disputed shop was con structed in the year 1984, therefore, the provisions of Act are not applicable. The petitioner is running the shop of religious books etc. and has earned a good will and there is no need to these shops to the landlord. It appears that a commission was also issued in this case by the Prescribed Authority. The Commissioner has sub mitted his report. It is stated by the petitioner that he filed objection against the report of the Commissioner on the ground that the Advocate who has been appointed Court Commissioner is junior of the Counsel for the landlord. An af fidavit was also filed to this effect by the tenant Munna Lai. That affidavit has been filed as Annexure 11 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also filed rent receipts, and certified copy of the extract of assess ment register to prove that he was tenant with t|se consent of the landlord and the shop was assessed on a particular date, therefore, on the date of the application the Act is not applicable. The report of the Commissioner is Annexure 14 to the writ petition. The Commissioner has reported that he recorded the statement of the petitioner and the witnesses Radha Krish na and Sunder Lai on the spot and no allotment order was shown by the petitioner. The objection of the petitioner against the report of the Commissioner is also on record wherein he has reiterated that the Advocate Commissioner Sri Shobh Raj Singh is Junior to Sri R. P. Chaturvedi, Advocate of the landlord and his appointment is pur
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
