Back
2016 Supreme(All) 2412
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sunita Agarwal, J.
Mohd. Sakib - Appellant
Versus
Rent. Control & Eviction Officer/A.C.M. 5th, And 4 Others - Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 17881 of 2016
Decided On : 21-04-2016
For the Petitioner: Mohammad Shahrum Khan
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Sanjai Kumar.
Occupation of a building without an allotment order is prohibited under Section 13 of the Act.
Headnote:
Vacancy - Rent Control - The court upheld the order of vacancy dated 22.2.2016, finding that the alleged rent deed was of no evidentiary value and that there was no allotment order in favor of the petitioner, making him an unauthorized occupant.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 based on the land-lady's intimation of vacancy of the disputed accommodation. The Rent Control Inspector's report confirmed the petitioner's occupation of the accommodation without an allotment order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alleged rent deed was of no evidentiary value, the notice was denied by the landlord, and there was no allotment order in favor of the petitioner, making him an unauthorized occupant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the alleged rent deed, the authenticity of the notice, and the absence of an allotment order for the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the alleged rent deed was of no evidentiary value, the notice was denied by the landlord, and the absence of an allotment order made the petitioner an unauthorized occupant, leading to no good ground for interference in the order for declaration of vacancy.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the case, finding no good ground for interference in the order for declaration of vacancy.
Sri Sanjai Kumar has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.
2. The order of vacancy dated 22.2.2016 is under challenge. The proceeding under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was initiated on the application moved by the land-lady Smt. Tanveer Khan intimating vacancy of the disputed accommodation which comprises of one room, verandah, kitchen, latrine and bathroom.
3. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report dated 23.10.2015 after making on the spot inspection. In his report, he has narrated that Mohd. Shakib namely the petitioner was found in occupation of the residential accommodation. When inquired, he informed that he is occupying the disputed accommodation as a tenant for the last approximately eight years @ of Rs.100/- p.m. The land-lady refused to receive rent from August 2015 and, therefore, he started depositing it under Section 30(1) of the Act. The proceedings for declaration of vacancy was contested by the petitioner by filing a paper dated 5.10.2014 which was alleged as rent deed. The notice dated 21.10.2014 and the copy of tender for deposit of rent were also filed.
4. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after perusal of the documents on record came to the conclusion that the alleged rent deed dated 5.10.2014 is a sheer waste piece of paper inasmuch as it is neither an affidavit nor a registered document. It is written on a plain paper having no evidentiary value.
5. So far as the notice date 21.10.2014 is concerned, it was categorically denied by the landlord that he had sent any such notice.
6. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer concluded that these documents have been fabricated by the petitioner for the purpose of the present proceedings.
7. This apart, there is no allotment order and the petitioner namely Mohd. Shakib is an unauthorized occupant.
8. Challenging this order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had erred in ignoring the rent deed and the documents which were brought on record to prove that the petitioner was in occupation of the disputed accommodation with the consent of the landlord. However, he has not been able to show that there is an allotment order in his favour.
9. Section 13 of the Act prohibits occupation of a building without there being an allotment order.
10. In view thereof, no good ground for interference is made out in the order dated 22.2.2016 for declaration of vacancy.
No case is made out.
Dismissed.
