Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
MOOTHAM, GURTU, JJ.
Chandra Bhan
Versus
Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra
Writ Petn. No. 7809 of 1951
Decided On : 23-07-1953
CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT - S. 7 - ALLOTMENT OF VACANT ACCOMMODATION - ORDER OF ALLOTMENT - REQUISITES - DATE OF VACANCY - DETERMINATION OF - PROCEDURE - QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's father informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer about the vacancy of a portion of their premises. The officer endorsed an allotment order on the application, but no order was issued. Later, the officer cancelled the endorsement and allotted the accommodation to another person. The petitioner challenged the cancellation and the subsequent allotment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the endorsement made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was not a valid order of allotment as it was not addressed to the landlord and did not comply with the requirements of S. 7 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The court also held that the subsequent allotment order in favor of the other person was invalid as it was made without determining the date of vacancy of the accommodation.
Issues: 1. Whether the endorsement made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was a valid order of allotment? 2. Whether the subsequent allotment order in favor of the other person was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the endorsement made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was not a valid order of allotment as it was not addressed to the landlord and did not comply with the requirements of S. 7 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The court relied on the provisions of S. 7(1) of the Act and Rule 4 of the rules made thereunder, which require that an order of allotment can only be made after the accommodation has fallen vacant and that the landlord must be given notice before the order is made. 2. The court held that the subsequent allotment order in favor of the other person was invalid as it was made without determining the date of vacancy of the accommodation. The court held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer acted in a quasi-judicial capacity when determining the date of vacancy, and that he was required to give the parties a full opportunity to present their case before making a decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no valid allotment of the accommodation to either the petitioner or the other person. The court directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to make a fresh order of allotment, bearing in mind the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.
MOOTHAM, J. :- This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
2. The essential facts in an involved chain of circumstances are the following :
One Suraj Bhan Jain, who is the father of the petitioner, was the owner of certain premises in Agra. On 23-2-1950, he informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra, that the portion of the premises which was occupied by Sri Genda Lal Jain was about to be vacated, and he asked that that portion of the house be allotted to the petitioner.
3. On 15th April Suraj Bhan Jain moved an application before the same Officer in which he stated that as more than thirty days had passed from the date upon which lie had informed that officer of the existence of the vacancy, and as no allotment had been made, he nominated the petitioner as his tenant in respect of the vacant portion of the premises. No action having been taken on either of these applications, Suraj Bhan Jain made a further application on 2nd May, and on 3rd June the Rent Control and Eviction Officer made the following endorsement on the application :
"Allotted to Chandra Bhan Jain. Issue allotment order".
No allotment order was in fact issued.
4. On 6th June, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cancelled his order of the 3rd June and issued an allotment order in respect of the same accommodation in favour of respondent No. 4, B.L. Kapoor.
5. On 19th September the Additional Commissioner Agra, quashed the allotment order of 6th June and directed the District Magistrate to make a further enquiry.
6. On 14-12-1950, the District Magistrate directed that the accommodation be allotted to the petitioner, and on the 22nd December an allotment order was issued.
7. On 22nd January 1951, the Additional Commissioner cancelled the District Magistrates order of 14th December and the allotment order of 22nd December and again referred the case back to the District Magistrate.
8. On 5th April the District Magistrate decided that the accommodation should be allotted to the petitioner, but no allotment order was made.
9. Finally on 21st May the Additional Commissioner set aside the District Magistrates order of 5th April.
10. In these circumstances the petitioner has come to this Court, and he asks for the following reliefs : first, for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash, the order made by the Additional Commissioner on 21-5-1951; and, secondly, for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to compel the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra, and the Commissioner of the Agra Division, to put into effect "the allotment made in favour of the applicant". 11. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that there was a valid allotment of the accommodation made in his favour on 3-6-1950; that that allotment, once made, could not subsequently be revoked; and the allotment order of 8th June in favour of Kapoor was consequently invalid; that alternatively the allotment order of 22-12-1950, is a good and subsisting order; and, in the further alternative, that on the basis of the order of the District Magistrate of 5-4-1951, he is entitled to have an allotment order prepared in his favour.
12. In our opinion the authorities concerned failed to observe the provisions of the Rent Control and Eviction Act and have misdirected themselves as to their powers thereunder, with the result that these long drawn out proceedings, which must have been the cause of much anxiety and hardship to the parties concerned, are vitiated throughout.
13. The first and principal question is whether the endorsement made on 3-6-1950, on the application of the petitioners father on the preceding 2nd May is an order such as is contemplated by S. 7 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act.
14. The relevant part of S. 7 (as then in force) was as follows :
"1(a). The District Magistrate may, by general or special order, require a landlord to give information that any accommodation of which he is the landlord is or has fallen vacant and to let or not to let suc
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
