Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1976 DIGILAW 700 (ALL)

Sita Ram Sahni v. Tara Chand

1976-10-25

N.D.OJHA

body1976
JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - The petitioner is the landlord of the accommodation in dispute. Respondents 1 and 2 Tara Chand and Panna Lal were the tenants of the said accommodation. The petitioner made an application for permission to file a suit for ejectment of respondents 1 and 2 under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947. It was contested by respondents 1 and 2. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to the conclusion that the need of the petitioner was bona fide. He accordingly granted the requisite permission as against Tara Chand respondent No. l but dismissed the application in so far as Panna Lal respondent No. 2 was concerned. In doing so he took the view that Tara Chand had constructed his own house and would not as such be put to any inconvenience if he was required to vacate the portion of the accommodation occupied by him, but so far as Panna Lal is concerned he being a man of ordinary means and an old tenant would be put to hardship if he was required to vacate the portion of the accommodation in his tenancy. The Rent Control & Eviction Offices also came to the conclusion that even on getting possession over the portion of the accommodation occupation by Tara Chand the need of the petitioner would not be fulfilled and the said portion would not be sufficient for his requirements. He however took the view that the petitioner could make further constructions to satisfy his needs. The order of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer was dated April 29, 1972. Against that order two revisions were filed before the Commissioner one by the landlord and the other by the tenants. Before these revisions could be decided U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act was repealed by the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act) which cane into force on July 15, 1972. The two revisions were transferred to the District Judge in view of Section 43 (2) (m) of the new Act and were treated as appeals. The District Judge by his order dated December 20, 1972, upheld the order of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer. The two revisions were transferred to the District Judge in view of Section 43 (2) (m) of the new Act and were treated as appeals. The District Judge by his order dated December 20, 1972, upheld the order of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer. He came to the conclusion that the need of the petitioner was bona fide and that no interference was called for in the order of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer so far as Tara Chand is concerned. He, however, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner which was in respect of the portion of the accommodation in the tenancy of Panna Lal, respondent No. 2. Even while dismissing the appeal the District Judge was apparently conscious of the hardship to which the petitioner was being put on account of the shortage of accommodation and he made an observation that notwithstanding his order it would be open to the petitioner to make an application under Section 21 of the new Act on the expiry of one year from the date of his order for the release of the portion occupied by Panna Lal. 2. The orders of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer and the District Judge in so far as they were against Tara Chand respondent No. 1 were challenged in writ petition No. 268 of 1973. This writ petition was dismissed on July 11, 1975. Those orders have thus become final. The present writ petition challenges the orders of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer and the District Judge in so far as they relate to the portion of the accommodation in question occupied by Panna Lal, respondent No. 2. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties I am of opinion that the order of the District Judge in so far as it relates to the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal which was in respect of the portion of the accommodation occupied by Panna Lal cannot be sustained. In Karam Chand v. Balmukand, 1976 (2) A.L.J. 641. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties I am of opinion that the order of the District Judge in so far as it relates to the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal which was in respect of the portion of the accommodation occupied by Panna Lal cannot be sustained. In Karam Chand v. Balmukand, 1976 (2) A.L.J. 641. a Full Bench of this Court has held : "A revision relating to the grant of permission under Section 3 of U. P. Act III of 1947 pending immediately before the commencement of the new Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) before the Commissioner and transferred to the District Judge on commencement of the new Act shall be decided in accordance with the procedure and conditions laid down in Section 21 of the new Act and not in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Act. III of 1947." 4. In view of the aforesaid decision the District Judge was to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with the procedure and conditions laid down by Section 21 of the new Act. On the finding recorded by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer that the need of the petitioner was bona fide and that even the portion occupied by Tara Chand would not be sufficient for his requirements which finding his not been reversed by the District judge but has virtually been upheld, the District Judge should not have deferred the consideration of the application of the petitioner vis-a-vis the portion occupied by Panna Lal till a fresh application was made under Section 21 on the expiry of one year from the date of his order. He should have disposed of the appeal on the basis that the application made by the petitioner was an application under Section 21 of the new Act itself It would further be seen that the one year period contemplated by the District Judge has since expired. Indeed nearly four years have gone by since the order of the District judge was passed 5. In view of the foregoing discussion I am of opinion that the order of the District Judge deserves to be quashed and a direction issued for deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh. 6. Indeed nearly four years have gone by since the order of the District judge was passed 5. In view of the foregoing discussion I am of opinion that the order of the District Judge deserves to be quashed and a direction issued for deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh. 6. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the order of the District judge dated December 20, 1972, in so far as it relates of the disposal of the petitioner's appeal in regard to the portion of the accommodation occupied by respondent No. 2 Panna Lal is quashed and he is directed to decide that appeal afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs.