Back
1995 Supreme(All) 1337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.H. ZAIDI, J.
H.S. Bhatnagar - Appellant
Versus
Addl. District Judge and Others - Respondents
C.M.W.P. No. 11895 of 1982
Decided On : 28-08-1995
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Janardan Sahai and Ajit Kumar.
Sub-letting of a building without the landlord's consent and an order of allotment by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is illegal, and the occupation of the sub-tenant is unauthorized.
Headnote:
VACANT BUILDING - UTTAR PRADESH URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 7(3), 11, 12(1)(B), 12(4), 13, 14, 25 - SUB-LETTING OF BUILDING - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION ON SUB-LETTING AND VACANCY OF BUILDING.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the owner of a building, sought to declare a portion of the building vacant after a sub-tenant vacated the premises. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the revisional authority dismissed the application, holding that the sub-tenant's vacation did not create a vacancy. The petitioner challenged these orders in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the portion of the building fell vacant upon the sub-tenant's vacation, relying on a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court. The court further held that the sub-letting of the portion of the building was illegal and the occupation of the sub-tenant was unauthorized, as the landlord's consent was not obtained and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to issue an order of allotment without the landlord's concurrence.
Issues: 1. Whether the portion of the building fell vacant upon the sub-tenant's vacation? 2. Whether the sub-letting of the portion of the building was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Full Bench decision in Mohd. Ishhaq v. State Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, which held that when a sub-tenant ceases to occupy, a vacancy arises again, irrespective of the reversionary right of the tenant-in-chief. 2. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and held that sub-letting of a building was prohibited, except with the consent of the landlord and an order of allotment by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Since the landlord's consent was not obtained and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to issue an order of allotment without the landlord's concurrence, the sub-letting was held to be illegal.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for a fresh decision on the questions of whether the sub-letting was valid and whether the sub-tenant's occupation was authorized, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
R.H. Zaidi, J.
The present petition is directed against the orders passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner u/s 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and refusing to declare the building in question as vacant and dismissing the revision filed by the Petitioner against the said order, respectively.
2. The facts as unfolded in the writ petition are that the Petitioner was owner and landlord of the building No. 38, Lytton Road, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the building in question), a portion of the said building was let out to Sri Diwan Singh, Respondent No. 3, who without the consent of the Petitioner illegally sub-let a portion in his occupation to Sri B.M. Puri, Respondent No. 4. It was on 3.1.78 that Sri B.M. Puri vacated the portion of the building in his occupation, the same has thus fallen vacant and on 5.1.78 Petitioner filed an application for release of the said portion on the ground of his personal need before Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun.
3. The application filed by the Petitioner was contested by Respondent No. 3 alone. He claimed himself to be the tenant-in-chief of the building in question and contended that the said portion was allotted in favour of the Respondent No. 4 in the year 1970. He contended that on vacating by Respondent No. 4 of the said portion, there arose no vacancy within the meaning of term used under the Act.
4. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer was pleased to hold that Respondent No. 3 was tenant-in-chief of the building in question and on vacating by Respondent No. 4 of the portion in his occupation, the same did not fall vacant. Having recorded the said finding, he refused to declare the vacancy in the said portion by his order dated 10.8.78. The validity of the order dated 10.8.78 was challenged before Respondent No. 1 by filing a revision u/s 18 of the Act. Respondent No. 1 was also pleased to dismiss the revision filed by the Petitioner vide judgment and order dated 15.6.82.
5. Learned Counsel for Petitioner has contended that admittedly Sri B.M. Puri, who was sub-tenant in the portion of the building in question has vacated the same, therefore, the said portion has fallen vacant and was liable to be declared as such. The view taken to the contrary by the authorities below was erroneous and illegal. It was also contended that the Petitioner never gave consent to Respondent No. 3 to sub-let the portion in favour of Sri B.M. Puri and in his knowledge, no order of allotment was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directing him to let out the said portion to Sri B.M. Puri. The order of allotment, if any, obtained by Sri Puri in collusion with Respondent No. 3 was not binding on him and on the basis of the said order, the occupation of Sri Puri cannot be said to be authorised. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, on the other hand, urged that under the Uttar Pradesh Act No. III of 1947, the portion of the building could be sub-let. He contended that Sri Diwan Singh was admittedly tenant of the building and he sub-let the portion of the said building in favour of Sri Puri, Respondent No. 4 and Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed the order of allotment in favour of Sri Puri. On vacating by Respondent No. 4 Sri Puri, the portion in his occupation on 3.1.78, no vacancy arose and application for release of said portion filed by the Petitioner was rightly dismissed by the authorities below.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also carefully perused the record.
7. Admittedly, Petitioner is owner and landlord of the building in question. It is also not disputed that the portion of the said building was let out by Respondent No.3. Respondent No. 3 in turn let out a portion of the said building in favour of Respondent No. 4, who in the year 1970 had obtained an order of allotment from Rent Cont
