Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
V. BHARGAVA, J.
Ram Chander
Versus
Mohan Lal Tewari
Civil Misc. Writ No. 22 of 1952
Decided On : 13-01-1954
U.P. (TEMPORARY) CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT - S. 2(D) - ALLOTMENT ORDER - AUTHORITY OF RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - DELEGATION OF POWERS - REQUIREMENT OF EXPRESS ORDER - EFFECT OF INVALID ORDER - RESTORATION BY STATE GOVERNMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, claiming to be the owner of an accommodation, challenged an allotment order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (opposite party No. 3) in favor of opposite party No. 1. The petitioner contended that the order was invalid as it was passed by an officer who lacked the authority to do so.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Shri P.S. Tandon, was a probationary Deputy Collector who had not been expressly authorized by the District Magistrate to perform the functions of a District Magistrate under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The court held that the order of allotment was, therefore, invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had the authority to pass the allotment order. 2. Whether the restoration of the invalid order by the State Government made it valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 2(d) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, which defines 'District Magistrate,' and held that the authority to perform the functions of a District Magistrate under the Act must be conferred by an express order. 2. The court held that the order passed by the District Magistrate merely indicating that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer would take up house and rent control work did not constitute an express order conferring the necessary authority. 3. The court held that the restoration of the invalid order by the State Government did not make it valid, as the State Government did not pass any allotment order of its own.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to give effect to the invalid allotment order.
The petitioner claims to be the owner of the accommodation. The fact that the petitioner is the owner of the accommodation is not contested by the opposite parties. The only opposite party who filed a counter-affidavit is opposite party No. 1 Mohan Lal Tewari. No counter-affidavits have been filed by any of the other four opposite parties.
2. When this petition came up for hearing before me, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to argue first one point which was mere or less a question of law and that related to the authority of opposite party No. 3 to pass the order challenged by this writ petition. The post of opposite party No. 3 at the time of the order of allotment was held by Shri P.S. Tandon who, it appears, was a probationary Deputy Collector.
According to the affidavit filed in support of the petition, no express order was passed by the District Magistrate of Kanpur authorising Shri P.S. Tandon to perform the functions of the District Magistrate under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act or under any of the provisions of that Act. The affidavit says that the District Magistrate only passed one single order which was to the following effect :
"A probationary Deputy Collector is being posted here. He will take up house and rent control work."
3. There are two aspects which are of importance. The first is that this order was passed at a time when Shri P.S. Tandon had not yet taken over charge in the district of Kanpur and was still being posted to that place. The latter portion of the order cannot, therefore, be deemed to be an order authorising him to perform the functions of a District Magistrate as no such order a could be passed until he had already taken over charge in the district and had become subordinate to the District Magistrate so that the District Magistrate might have authority to delegate the powers to him.
The second aspect is that the language used in the order of the District Magistrate merely indicates that the District Magistrate was considering at that time what would be the distribution of work among the officers and he said that Shri P.S. Tandon would take up house and rent control work. In recording this order, it does not appear that the District Magistrate intended by the order passed to confer authority on Shri P.S. Tandon to perform the functions of a District Magistrate under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act.
In the counter-affidavit Mohan Lal Tewari contented himself by stating that the assertion made by the petitioner in his affidavit that Shri P.S Tandon was not a duly appointed officer under S. 2(d), U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act was denied. In case there was any proper order actually conferring the authority on Shri P.S. Tandon, the opposite party in his affidavit could have re-produced it or at least made a reference to it.
It may be noticed that, in this case, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of Kanpur was himself an opposite party and so was the District Magistrate of Kanpur. No counter-affidavits have been filed on their behalf and no attempt has been made to contest the correctness of the allegation made by the petitioner in para No. 23 of his affidavit that only one single order was passed by the District Magistrate wh
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
