Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.P. SAXENA, J
Jamuna Oil Mills - Appellant
Versus
The Addl. District Judge and others - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ No. 1671 of 1977
Decided on : 20-04-1978
U.P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 2(1)(D) - EXEMPTION FROM ACT - BUILDING USED FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSE - LEASE OF BUILDING ALONG WITH MACHINERY - IMPLIED SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS - DEEMED VACANCY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 12(2).
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, Jamuna Oil Mills, had taken on lease a building along with machinery installed in it for extracting oil. The building was owned by the opposite party No. 3, Smt. Brinjrani Mehrotra. The partnership firm of the Petitioner underwent changes over the years, with partners joining and leaving. In 1968, one of the partners, Sardar Gur Charan Singh, died, leading to the dissolution of the partnership. Subsequently, Sri Nar Singh Das, another partner, was inducted into the firm in 1974. The landlady, Smt. Mehrotra, filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (RC & EO) seeking allotment of a portion of the building on the ground that there was a deemed vacancy due to the induction of a new partner. The RC & EO rejected the application, holding that the building was not exempt from the Act and that there was no vacancy. On appeal, the District Judge held that the building was covered by the Act and that there was a deemed vacancy due to the induction of Sri Nar Singh Das as a partner. The Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the District Judge. The High Court quashed the order of the District Judge and remanded the matter for reconsideration. On remand, the Additional District Judge held that there was an implied surrender of tenancy rights by Sri Nar Singh Das and that there was a deemed vacancy. The Petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Additional District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the building in dispute was exempt from the operation of the Act by virtue of Section 2(1)(d), which exempts buildings used for industrial purposes where the plant and apparatus installed for such purpose are leased out along with the building. The Court found that the building was used for extracting oil, which is an industrial purpose, and that the machinery for extracting oil was leased out along with the building. Therefore, the Court held that the building was not governed by the provisions of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the building in dispute is exempt from the operation of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, by virtue of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act? 2. Whether there was an implied surrender of tenancy rights by Sri Nar Singh Das, leading to a deemed vacancy under Section 12(2) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and held that the building in dispute, which was used for industrial purposes and where the machinery for such purpose was leased out along with the building, was exempt from the operation of the Act. 2. The Court held that there was no implied surrender of tenancy rights by Sri Nar Singh Das, as there was no evidence of any agreement between the partners that the leasehold rights were to be treated as property of the partnership. The Court also held that the mere fact that partners of the firm remained changing and the rent was paid in the name of the firm did not lead to an inference of implied surrender.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Additional District Judge. The Court held that the building in dispute was exempt from the operation of the Act and that there was no deemed vacancy.
M.P. Saxena, J.
This is a tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings u/s 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter called the Act.
2. Smt. Brinjrani Mehrotra, opposite party No. 3 is the landlady of building No. 75, Malviya Nagar, Allahabad (Old No. 64/74 Yahiyapur, Allahabad). Machinery for extracting oil was installed in it. Jamuna Oil Mills, the Petitioner, is a firm carrying on the business of extracting oil and other business incidental thereof. Originally there were five partners in this film, namely, Shri K.C. Mehrotra, Shri Narsing Das, Sardar Gur Charan Singh, Sardar Mahar Singh and Sri Sardar Singh. The Petitioner firm took the building along with the machinery etc. installed in it on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- in 1955. The aforesaid partnership firm continued upto 12-11-1962 when it was reconstituted with only three partners, namely, Shri K.C. Mehrotra, Sardar Gur Charan Singh and Shri Nar Singh Das. It was duly registered as required by Section 58(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
3. On 27-5-1968 Gur Charan Singh, one of the partners died apd the partnership stood dissolved in view of Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act.
4. On 7-1-1975 Shri Pradeep Tandon, opposite party No. 2 moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allotment of a portion of this building on the ground that after the death of Sardar Gur Charan Singh, his son and Shri K.C. Mehrotra continued the partnership business. Sri Nar Singh Das ceased to be a partner but on 9-9-1974 he was again inducted as a partner and, as such, the building will be deemed to have fallen vacant within the meaning of Section 12(2) of the Act. It was also alleged that the firm had created vacancy by sub-letting a portion of this building to one Bishambhar Lal for residential purpose.
5. On 17-4-1975 the landlady opposite party No. 3 moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the effect that the building was exempt from the operation of the said Act and be had no jurisdiction to deal with the allotment application. She also gave out that in case the building is deemed to have fallen vacant she may be granted time to move a release application before the disposal of the application for allotment.
6. On 14-7-1975, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer negatived the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction by observing;
In the absence of lease, I am of the view that the portion of the building in dispute is not exempt from the operation of the Act and it definitely comes within the ambit of the Act.
7. 5-8-1975 was fixed for ascertainment of vacancy. He came to the conclusion that Sri Nar Singh Das was not admitted as a new partner and there was no vacancy within the meaning of Section 12(2) of the Act. The release application moved by the landlady and the application for allotment presented by Shri Pradeep Tandon were rejected on 18-8-1975.
8. Only Pradeep Tandon filed an appeal u/s 18 of the Act and it was decided by the learned III Addl. District Judge, Allahabad on 1-1-1976. The contention of the landlady and Shri Pradeep Tandon that a portion of the building was sublet to Bishambhar Das was negatived. He, however, held that Shri Nar Singn Das was inducted as a new partner on 9-9-1974 and the building should be deemed to have fallen vacant u/s 12(2) of the Act. The question whether the building was covered by the provisions of the Act was left open. The appeal was allowed and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was directed to notify the vacancy and to dispose of the application for release and allotment according to law.
9. Jamuna Oil Mills filed a writ petition No. 116-A of 1976 which was heard and decided by Hon'ble Sapru, J. on 5-5-1976. Three questions were pressed before him. Firstly, that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer holding that there was no vacancy was not ap
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
