Back
1976 Supreme(All) 290
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.M. SAHAI, J.
E. E. Dayal - Appellant
Versus
Phool Mani Dayal - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ No. 6272 of 1975
Decided on : Aug 30, 1976
N.L. Ganguly, K.B. Mathur, K.M. Dayal
An attorney or agent who becomes a landlord by virtue of the definition clause in the Act cannot file an application for release of the accommodation on the ground that the premises are needed by them for their own personal use.
Headnote:
LANDLORD-TENANT - U. P. ACT XIV OF 1972, SECTION 21 - LANDLADY - AGENT - APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF PREMISES - MAINTAINABILITY - NEED OF LANDLORD-OWNER.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an application under section 21 of U. P. Act XIV of 1972, claiming to be the landlady of the premises in dispute and seeking release of the premises on the ground of her personal need. The prescribed authority rejected the application, holding that the respondent was not the landlady. The respondent appealed, and the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, holding that the respondent had become the landlady by virtue of a letter from the Trust authorizing her to collect rent from the tenants.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the respondent was not the landlady of the premises in dispute and that the application for release of the premises was not maintainable. The court found that the letter from the Trust authorizing the respondent to collect rent did not constitute a transfer of the premises to the respondent and that the respondent had not established that she was the owner of the premises.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was the landlady of the premises in dispute? 2. Whether the application for release of the premises was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "landlord" in the Act is wide enough to include any person to whom the rent is paid or payable, including an attorney or agent. However, an attorney or agent cannot file an application for eviction of a tenant on the ground that the need of the attorney or agent is genuine. The need that must be considered under section 21 is the need of the landlord-owner. 2. The letter from the Trust authorizing the respondent to collect rent did not constitute a transfer of the premises to the respondent. The letter was merely a communication and did not indicate the consideration for the transfer or the terms necessary to constitute the transfer.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Additional District Judge.
R. M. Sahai, J.
1. THIS writ petition has been filed by the tenant against an order dated 28th April 1975 passed by I Additional District Judge, Allahabad allowing an application under section 21 of U. P. Act XIV of 1972. The application was filed by respondent on the ground that she was the owner and landlady of quarter No. 22 in No. 8-A, Divinity Compound, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad. It was alleged that her husband is employed as Telegraph In- charge, Northern Railway, Prayag, Allahabad. He has completed the age of 54 years and was due to retire sometime in November 1973. In these circumstances it was alleged that the need of the respondent was pressing, genuine and bonafide and the accommodation which is in possession of the petitioner may be released. THIS application was contested and one of the grounds alleged was that the respondent was neither the owner nor the landlady of the premises in dispute.
2. THE prescribed authority rejected the application of the respondent mainly on the ground that she was not the landlady and no right or title passed to her on the basis of a letter written by the Lucknow Diocesan Trust Allahabad dated 9th August 1963 filed as Annexure III to the counter affidavit. The respondent filed an appeal and the Additional District Judge was of the opinion that the letter dated 9th August 1963 was admittedly issued by the Trust which was the landlord and as it indicated that the respondent had paid for the building in question and so she was authorised to realise the rent. From this coupled with the fact that the petitioner started paying rent to the respondent he inferred that the respondent became the landlady and was entitled to file an application under section 21.
I have heard Sri K. B. Mathur for the petitioner and Sri K. M. Dayal for the respondent. The first question that arises for consideration is whether respondent was a landlady. Admittedly no sale deed or document has been filed on behalf of the respondent to show that the premises in dispute were transferred in her favour by the Trust. The only document on which reliance was placed before the courts below and which has been filed as Annexure-III to the counter affidavit reads as under ;
"I am directed to inform that as you have paid in full for a plot of land measuring 1975 sq. yards consisting of Bachelors quarters, servants quarters, etc. and plot has been allotted to you, you are authorised to collect the rent from the tenant accordingly as per list enclosed with effect from 1-3-63. The tenants are being informed accordingly. The transfer is subject to the approval of the Collector Allahabad. Yours faithfully Principal Officer."
This letter as is clear from the contents is only a communication by the Principal Officer to the respondent that she has been authorised to collect rent from the tenants as she has paid in full for a plot of land measuring 1975 sq. yards. This cannot be considered either as a document effecting any transfer or an agreement to transfer. Moreover as is clear by the letter the transfer was subject to the approval of the Collector Allahabad. It is neither stated in the counter affidavit nor any evidence has been filed to establish that the approval was finally granted by the Collector. The letter appears to be only a communication and from this it is not clear whether the amount that was paid was for transfer of the premises in favour of the respondent. The utmost that can be inferred from this letter is that the respondent was authorised to collect rent from the tenants. It may be true as has been held by the lower court that the tenant started paying rent to the respondent after the receipt of this letter. But it is difficult to agree that merely beacause the respondent was permitted by the trust to collect rent and the petitioner started paying rent in view of this communication received from the Principal Officer of the Trust, the respondent became landlord of the premises.
3. EVEN accepting for the
