Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.P.Mehrotra
LALTA PRASAD
Versus
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER 1ST ALLAHABAD
Decided On : 26 July 2006
C. M. W. P No. 30692 of 1993
The Court quashed the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring vacancy in the disputed portion and remanded the matter back to the officer for a fresh decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Lalta Prasad Sahu, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (First), Allahabad, declaring vacancy in respect of the disputed portion of a building. The petitioner was a tenant in the disputed portion, which was situated on the ground floor of House No. 16, Sarai Khuldabad, Allahabad. The landlord of the disputed portion was Kundan Lal Sahu (respondent No. 2). The petitioner filed an objection in the form of an affidavit before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, stating that he was a tenant in the disputed portion since before it was purchased by Kundan Lal Sahu, and that he had been continuously residing in the disputed portion. The petitioner also stated that he had several houses in Allahabad and as such, he should vacate the disputed portion. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by the impugned order dated 28-8-1993, held that there was deemed vacancy in the disputed portion and declared vacancy in respect of the said portion.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned order was liable to be quashed and the matter was liable to be remanded to the respondent No. 1 for deciding the same afresh in the light of observations made above after giving opportunity of being heard to both the sides. The Court observed that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (First), Allahabad (respondent No. 1) had not addressed himself of the relevant questions, as mentioned above, for deciding the question of applicability or otherwise of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act and had not recorded findings on such questions on a consideration of record, giving reasons for such findings. The Court further observed that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (First), Allahabad (respondent No. 1) had passed a sketchy order without applying his mind to the question as to whether the requirements of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act were fulfilled in the present case or not.
Issues: Whether the impugned order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring vacancy in the disputed portion was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the impugned order was liable to be quashed and the matter was liable to be remanded to the respondent No. 1 for deciding the same afresh in the light of observations made above after giving opportunity of being heard to both the sides. The Court observed that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (First), Allahabad (respondent No. 1) had not addressed himself of the relevant questions, as mentioned above, for deciding the question of applicability or otherwise of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act and had not recorded findings on such questions on a consideration of record, giving reasons for such findings. The Court further observed that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (First), Allahabad (respondent No. 1) had passed a sketchy order without applying his mind to the question as to whether the requirements of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act were fulfilled in the present case or not.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring vacancy in the disputed portion and remanded the matter back to the officer for a fresh decision.
The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 28-8-1993 (Annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Rent Control and Evic tion Officer (First), Allahabad (Respon dent No. 1 ).
2. The dispute relates to a portion of Building No. 16, Sarai Khuldabad, Al lahabad.
3. The said portion has here in after been referred to as the "disputed portion".
4. It was, inter alia, state d in the Writ Petition that the respondent No. 3 (Prashant Sahu) filed an application dated 19-12-199c for allotment of the disputed building; and that on the said allotment, application, the respondent No. 1 [rent, Control and Eviction Officer (First), Allahabad] ordered the Rent Control Inspector to inspect the disputed portion; and that in pursuance there to , the Rent Control Inspector in spected the disputed portion and sub mitted his report dated 3-8-1991.
Copy of the said Rent Control Inspectors report has been filed as An nexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition.
5. It was, inter alia, further state d in the Writ petition that the respondent No. 2 (Kundan Lal-landlord of the disputed portion) had already moved an applica tion under Section 21 of the U. P Act No. XIII of 1972 for the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed portion; and that the respondent No. 3 (Prashant Sahu) was the real nephew of the respondent No. 2 (Kundan Lal-landlord); and that the allotment ap plication moved by the respondent No. 3 (Prashant Sahu) before the respon dent No. 1 was the outcome of the hatched conspiracy between the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 3 with a common design to short-circuit the proceedings under Section 21 of the U. P Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter also referred to as the "act"); and that the said allotment ap plication filed by the respondent No. 3 was absolutely mala fide and collusive.
6. It was, inter alia, further state d in the Writ Petition that the respondent No. 3 (Prashant Sahu) was a permanent resident of House No. 14, Sarai Khul dabad, Allahabad; and that the said House No. 14, Sarai Khuldabad was owned by the father of the respondent No. 3, namely, Sangam Lal, who was the real brother of the respondent No. 2; and that the said respondent No. 3 was constructing a palacial building on the site No. 58, Sarai Khuldabad, Al lahabad; and that the petitioner lives only in two rooms in the said disputed portion.
7. It was, inter alia, further state the Writ Petition that against the said al lotment application filed by the respon dent No. 3, the petitioner filed his objec tion in the shape of an affidavit, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the Writ petition; and that against the said affidavit of the petitioner, none of the contesting respondents, namely, the respondent No. 2 and the respon dent No. 3, filed any counter-affidavit challenging the contents of the said af fidavit of the petitioner, or disputing the contents of the Annexures annexed with the said affidavit of the petitioner.
8. It was, inter alia, further state d in the Writ Petition that by the order dated 28-8-1993 (Annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition), the respondent No. 1 illegally declared vacancy under Section 12 (3) of the Act in respect of the disputed por tion.
9. It further appears that sup plementary affidavit, sworn on 6-9-1993, was filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was, inter alia, state d in the said supplementary affidavit that the disputed portion was originally in the tenancy of the petitioners father Ram Lai and on his death, it was inherited by all the adult persons who were living with him, i. e. , the petitioner and his major sons and daughters; and that all the aforesaid persons, after the death of ;he original tenant, became individual tenants separately in their own rights and that House No. 73, Sarai Khuldabad was purchased by the petitioners father Ram Lal in 1957; and that the petitioners son Vijay
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
