Back
1982 Supreme(All) 457
High Court Of Allahabad
K. C. Agrawal, N. N. Sharma, JJ.
Geep Industrial Syndicate Limited, Allahabad : Appellant
Versus
Rent Control And Eviction Officer, Allahabad : Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ No. 1931 of 1982
Decided On : May 24, 1982
Sunil Gupta
The unauthorized occupation of premises by a person who is not a tenant or a licensee amounts to a violation of the prohibition imposed by Section 11 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and the premises are deemed to be unoccupied or unfilled.
Headnote:
U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 11, 12, 13, 16 - VACANCY - UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION - COMPANY AS TENANT - PUBLIC POLICY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - HEADS OF PUBLIC POLICY - DOCTRINE OF LORD ATKIN - APPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITIONS TO COMPANIES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, M/s. Geep Industrial Syndicate Limited, challenged the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring vacancy and allotting the premises to Respondent 3. The petitioner claimed that it was the tenant of the premises and that Nizam Shervani, who was in occupation of the premises, was its guest or caretaker. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, however, found that Nizam Shervani was not an employee or officer of the petitioner and that his possession was invalid and unauthorized.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner's possession was unauthorized and illegal, and that there was a vacancy even at the time when the house was in Nizam Shervani's occupation and after it was vacated by him. The Court further held that Section 11 of the Act prohibits a tenant from letting any building except in pursuance of an allotment order issued under Section 16, and that the unauthorized occupation of the premises by Nizam Shervani amounted to a violation of this prohibition. The Court also held that the petitioner, being a company, was subject to the same prohibitions and restrictions imposed by the Act as a natural person, and that the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, which deals with deemed vacancy, were not applicable only to natural persons.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's possession of the premises was unauthorized and illegal. 2. Whether there was a vacancy at the time when the house was in Nizam Shervani's occupation and after it was vacated by him. 3. Whether Section 11 of the Act prohibits a tenant from letting any building except in pursuance of an allotment order issued under Section 16. 4. Whether the unauthorized occupation of the premises by Nizam Shervani amounted to a violation of the prohibition imposed by Section 11 of the Act. 5. Whether the petitioner, being a company, was subject to the same prohibitions and restrictions imposed by the Act as a natural person. 6. Whether the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, which deals with deemed vacancy, were applicable only to natural persons.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner's possession of the premises was unauthorized and illegal because Nizam Shervani, who was in occupation of the premises, was not an employee or officer of the petitioner and his possession was invalid and unauthorized. 2. The Court held that there was a vacancy at the time when the house was in Nizam Shervani's occupation and after it was vacated by him because the unauthorized occupation of the premises by Nizam Shervani amounted to a violation of the prohibition imposed by Section 11 of the Act. 3. The Court held that Section 11 of the Act prohibits a tenant from letting any building except in pursuance of an allotment order issued under Section 16 because the prohibition is imposed on the right of any person, which will include a landlord and tenant both. 4. The Court held that the unauthorized occupation of the premises by Nizam Shervani amounted to a violation of the prohibition imposed by Section 11 of the Act because his possession was not recognized in law and the premises were deemed to be unoccupied or unfilled. 5. The Court held that the petitioner, being a company, was subject to the same prohibitions and restrictions imposed by the Act as a natural person because the Act uses the expression "any person", which would include a company. 6. The Court held that the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, which deals with deemed vacancy, were not applicable only to natural persons because the Act does not make any distinction between natural persons and companies.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and discharged the stay order.
K. C. Agarwal, J.
1. THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by M/s. Geep Industrial Syndicate Limited, Allahabad, challenging the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 23rd November, 1981, and 11th February, 1982.
2. THE dispute in the present case is relating to a part of the accommodation at Minto Road, Allahabad, of which Indrajit Frank Agarwal, Retired District Judge, is the owner. This is, admittedly, a residential building. THE portion in dispute, according to the petitioner, was allotted to it on October 28, 1975, by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act XIII of 1972).
D. P. Singh, Respondent 3, moved an application for allotment of the aforesaid portion. In pursuance of the application for allotment, the Inspector made a spot enquiry and submitted a report on 21st November, 1981, that Nizam Shervani, who was the occupant of the aforesaid accommodation, had vacated the same on 18th November, 1981, and that the same was lying vacant. The premises in dispute consists of two rooms, one Hall, one verandah, kitchen, bath-room and one latrine. On being satisfied from the report, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the vacancy on November 23, 1981, and fixed 26th November, 1981, for consideration of the allotment applications.
3. BEFORE 26th November, 1981, the petitioner filed an objection to the declaration of vacancy claiming that the petitioner was the tenant of the aforesaid premises since long and was continuing in possession of the same. The petitioner also pleaded that the report submitted by the Inspector was incorrect hence the order dated 23rd November, 1981, declaring vacancy was liable to be recalled. To this objection of the petitioner, a reply was filed by Respondent 3 asserting that the allegation that the premises was in possession of the petitioner, was wrong. According to Respondent 3, Nizam Shervani had been in illegal possession of the disputed premises since 1979 and as he had vacated the same on 18th November, 198], the premises was vacant and was open for allotment. Nizam Shervani was in occupation in his own right and had a telephone connection in the name and style of Sigma Chemicals, in which name Nizam Shervani was running the business at Kanpur Road near Subedar Ganj, Allahabad. Nizam Shervani was not an employee of M/s. Geep Industrial Syndicate Limited, the petitioner.
4. TO the affidavit of D. P. Singh, Respondent 3, the petitioner got an affidavit of K. M. Khare, who was its Administrative Officer, filed. For the first time in this affidavit the petitioner disclosed and admitted that Nizam Shervani had vacated the premises. It was, however, maintained by the petitioner that the Company was the tenant and it had neither actually vacated the same nor was there any likelihood of its being vacated. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no power in law to declare the premises to be vacant. The petitioner asserted that the rent of the portion in dispute had been regularly paid by the petitioner to the landlord. Another affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner was that of Lal Bahadur Sharma, who claimed that R. K. Gupta, who was an officer of the petitioner, was residing in the premises in dispute after the same had been vacated by Nizam Shervani.
D. P. Singh, Respondent 3, filed a reply to these two affidavits and refuted the claim of the petitioner that there was no vacancy, and that the application for allotment made by him was not maintainable. The assertion that the report of the Inspector was against Rule 8 (1) was also denied. In the affidavit, thereafter sworn by K. M. Khare on 15-1-1982, the status in which Nizam Shervani was living in the premises in dispute was disclosed for the first time. It was stated that M/s. Sigma Chemicals was an ancillary unit of the petitioner Company, and that the said industr
