Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
V. BHARGAVA, J.
Jang Bahadur
Versus
Dist. Magistrate Banaras
Civil Misc Writ No. 117 of 1952
Decided On : 04-01-1954
UNITED PROVINCES (TEMPORARY) CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT, 1947 - S. 17, RULE 4 - ALLOTMENT OF SHOP - NOMINATION BY LANDLORD - FAILURE OF RENT CONTROL OFFICER TO MAKE ALLOTMENT FORTHWITH - RIGHT OF LANDLORD TO NOMINATE TENANT - VALIDITY OF NOMINATION - REVIEW OF ORDER BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Jang Bahadur, applied for allotment of a shop that had been vacated by a previous tenant. The landlord, Krishna Chaitanya Goswami, nominated Faujdar Rai as the new tenant under Rule 4 of the Rules framed under S. 17 of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer (ARCEO) initially held that Faujdar Rai was an unauthorized occupier and directed the landlord not to let out the shop without his order. However, the ARCEO later passed an order of allotment in favor of Jang Bahadur. Faujdar Rai challenged this order before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), who set aside the allotment to Jang Bahadur and directed that the shop be allotted to Faujdar Rai.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ARCEO had failed to make an allotment within one month of receiving the notice of vacancy from the landlord, as required by law. Therefore, the landlord had the right to nominate his own tenant, and the ARCEO was bound to make an allotment in accordance with the landlord's wishes. The court also found that the ADM had the authority to review the order of the ARCEO, as both officers were exercising concurrent powers delegated by the District Magistrate.
Issues: 1. Whether the ARCEO was correct in holding that Faujdar Rai was an unauthorized occupier and directing the landlord not to let out the shop without his order. 2. Whether the ARCEO was correct in passing an order of allotment in favor of Jang Bahadur after failing to make an allotment within one month of receiving the notice of vacancy from the landlord. 3. Whether the ADM had the authority to review the order of the ARCEO.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the ARCEO was incorrect in holding that Faujdar Rai was an unauthorized occupier, as the landlord had the right to nominate his own tenant after the ARCEO failed to make an allotment within one month of receiving the notice of vacancy. 2. The court held that the ARCEO was incorrect in passing an order of allotment in favor of Jang Bahadur after failing to make an allotment within one month of receiving the notice of vacancy from the landlord. The court found that the ARCEO was bound to make an allotment in accordance with the landlord's wishes, as the landlord had the right to nominate his own tenant. 3. The court held that the ADM had the authority to review the order of the ARCEO, as both officers were exercising concurrent powers delegated by the District Magistrate.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by Jang Bahadur, challenging the validity of the ADM's order allotting the shop to Faujdar Rai. The court found that the ADM's order was correct and valid under the law and that it was a just and proper order in the circumstances of the case.
On the 11th July 1950 the petitioner Jang Bahadur also made another application in the prescribed form requesting that the shop be allotted to him, as it had actually fallen vacant. There were various other persons also who wanted allotment of that shop in their favour. The Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer first passed an order directing the landlord not to let out the shop to any one without his order and then on the 3rd August 1950 held that Faujdar Rai, who had occupied the shop in the meantime, was an unauthorised occupier and was liable to be ejected from the shop. The Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to this view after holding that the vacancy had not been intimated to him by a letter alleged to have been sent by the landlord on 5-7-1950 and consequently no right had accrued to the landlord to nominate a tenant of his own choice under the rules.
On 12-8-1950 the Assistant Rent control and Eviction Officer passed an order of allotment in favour of Jang Bahadur. On the same day Faujdar Rai moved the Additional District Magistrate seeking reversal of the order of the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer making the allotment in favour of Jang Bahadur. The Additional District Magistrate stayed operation of the order of the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer. On 1-9-1950 the landlord applied to the Additional District Magistrate asking for the stay of the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directing possession to be given to Jang Bahadur.
On 25-10-1950 the Additional District Magistrate dismissed the application of Faujdar Rai for reversing the order of the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the ground that that application had been presented directly to him and had not been received by him on transfer from the District Magistrate. Thereupon on 26-10-1950 Faujdar moved an application before the District Magistrate. This application was entertained by the District Magistrate who delegated his authority to the Additional District Magistrate and sent the application to him for disposal. The Additional District Magistrate after hearing parties passed an order on the 6th December 1950 setting aside the order of allotment passed in favour of Jang Bahadur and directed that the shop in question be allotted to Faujdar Rai.
On 8-12-1950 the petitioner moved the District Magistrate to vacate the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 6-12-1950. This application was rejected by the District Magistrate on 25-4-1951 with an order that he could not entertain an appeal or revision and if a review of the order of the Additional Magistrate was sought the application should be presented direct before the Additional District Magistrate.
While these proceedings were going on before the Additional District Magistrate and the District Magistrate the Assist. Rent Control and Eviction Officer had also started proceedings under S. 7A of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 for ejectment of Faujdar Rai from the shop in question. These proceedings also terminated aft
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
