Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1977 DIGILAW 676 (ALL)

Tara Chand v. Prescribed Authority, Meerut

1977-12-14

K.C.AGARWAL, K.N.SINGH

body1977
JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - These two writ petitions are directed against an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 7.6.1975, rejecting the petitioners' application under Section 43(2)(rr) of the U P. Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 2. There is a Digambar Jain Temple Agarwal Mandi Tahsil Baghpat, district Meerut. The respondents Jaipal Singh and Gulshan Rai Jain have been the tenants of two shops which form Fart of the temple buildings. Trilok Chand, the President of the Managing Committee of the said temple, filed an application under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temp) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 for the grant of permission to file suit to evict the aforesaid tenants. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 17.4.1977 granted permission to file the suit. The respondent-tenants filed revision against that order. During the course of hearing of the revision before the commissioner, some compromise appears to have taken place, as a result of which the landlord agreed to provide alternative accommodation to the respondent tenants after reconstruction of the shops. The Commissioner directed that the Temple Committee should execute the necessary documents to the satisfaction of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer within a period of two months from the date of the order of (the date being 23.7.1971) and the tenants were required to vacate the shops and hand over possession to the Temple Committee within a period of one month from the date of execution of the documents. Thereafter the matter came up for consideration before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It appears that the Temple Committee filed certain document and made offer of alternative accommodation but the tenants raised objections to the offer made by the Temple Committee. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer referred the matter to the Commissioner for clarification. The Commissioner by his order dated 25.2.72 clarified the position and directed the Temple Committee to submit the draft within a period of two months from the date of the order, namely 25.2.1972, with a condition that if the Temple Committee failed to execute the necessary documents to the satisfaction of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer within the said period, the permission granted to them under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temp) Control of Rent and Eviction Act would stand revoked. The tenants filed a representation before the State Government against the order of the Commissioner under Section 7-F of the 1947 Act. The State Government by its order dated 7.5.1973 rejected the tenants' application and affirmed the order of the Commissioner. 3. The Temple Committee thereupon Filed an application under Section 43(2)(rr) of the U P. Act No. XIII of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority for the eviction of the respondent-tenants from the shops in question. The tenants contested the application on ground that the permission which had been granted in favour of the Temple Committee under Section 3 of the 1947 Act was not obtained on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and as such they could not be evicted summarily. The tenants further pleaded that since the permission under Section 3 of the 1947 Act had been granted with a condition which was not complied with by the landlords, the permission granted for their eviction ceased to be in force. The Prescribed Authority by its order dated 7.6.75 held that the permission was not granted on any of the grounds specified in subsections (i) and (2) of Section 21 of the U P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and since the permission was conditional and as the condition had not be complied with by the landlords, the permission bad not become final, hence the application for the tenants' eviction under section 43(2)(rr) of the U P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not maintainable. The President of the Temple Committee has challenged the order of the Prescribed Authority by means of this petition. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the order of the Prescribed Authority does not suffer from any patent error of law. Section 43(2)(Cr) of the 1972 Act confers power on the Prescribed Authority to summarily eject a tenant if the conditions prescribed therein are satisfied. According to the said provision, a tenant can summarily be evicted if the permission under Section 3 of the 1947 Act had been obtained on any of the grounds specified in sub-sections (I) and (2) of Section 21 of the Act and the order had become final before the commencement of the sub-section (2) of Section 43 of the Act of 1972. In the instant case the landlords, namely, the Temple Committee had made application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the grant of permission on the assertion that the Digambar Jain Temple, which was the owner of the disputed shops, needed the shops for extension of building to construct a Pathshala and Tyagi Bhavan This ground does not fall either within the ambit of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners then urged that since the Digambar Jain Temple is a charitable trust and the shops in question were required for the construction of Dharmshala and Pathsala, the purpose fell within the object of the trust and the permission granted under Section 3 of the U.P. Act No. 1II of 1947 was sustainable under sub-section (1)(a) of Section 2 1 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. There is no material on record to support this contention. The petitioner did not place any evidence before the Prescribed Authority, or before this Court to show that the Digambar Jain Temple was a public charitable trust, and the purpose for which the eviction of the tenants was claimed fell within the objects of the trust. In the absence of any evidence, the petitioner's contention can be accepted. 6. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference with the order of the Prescribed Authority. 7. In the result, we dismiss the petitions with costs.