Shobha Rani v. Rent Control and Eviction officer — 1984 DIGILAW 766 (ALL)

JUDGMENT V.N. Khare, J. - The petitioner by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 8.5.1981 of the learned Additional District Judge, Allahabad passed under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. Vishwanath Tandon, respondent No. 3 was the landlord of the premises No. 490, Malviya Nagar, Allahabad. One Hira Lal was tenant of that house. Hira Lal constructed his own house and thus vacated the premises in dispute. The petitioner who is the married daughter of Hira Lal claims that she has been living in the said premises after Hira Lal vacated it with consent of landlord. It appears on vacation of premises by Hira Lal Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad declared vacancy in respect of house in dispute. Petitioner filed objection that since she has been living in the premises with consent of landlord her possession in the premises in dispute be regularised under Section 14 of the Act. In the alternative she pleaded for allotment of the premises in dispute in our favour. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the objection of petitioner for regularisation of her possession but passed an order allotting the premises in dispute to her. It further appears that after the allotment order was issued in favour of the petitioner, the erstwhile landlord Vishwanath Tandon by registered sale-deed transferred the said house to Smt. Munni Devi respondent No. 4, the present landlord. Smt. Munni Devi alongwith erstwhile landlord Vishwanath Tandon moved an application under sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Act for setting aside the order dated 4.10.1979 allotting the premises to the petitioner. Smt. Munni Devi also moved an application for release of premises in her favour. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of Vishwanath Tandon an as well as Smt Munni Devi by his order dated 4.10.1979. Aggrieved respondent landlord Smt. Munni Devi and Vishwanath Tandon, erstwhile landlord preferred revision to the learned District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge found that the allotment order had not been passed after giving notice to the landlord and as such allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 4.10.1979 allotting the premises in dispute to the petitioner and remanded the matter to The Rent Control and Eviction Officer for deciding the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the landlord. The present petition is directed against the aforesaid order. 3. It appears that before the interim order passed by this Court could be communicated to the respondents, the impugned order of remand was given effect to inasmuch as the application of the landlord for release of the premises in her favour was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 13.8.1981. The petitioner did not challenge this subsequent order passed on basis of order of remand. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent took preliminary objection that since the impugned order has already been given effect to and has exhausted itself, as such the writ petition has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of release passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is a consequential to the order of remand and as such the writ petition is alive. Since I have heard the case on merits, I decline to decide the above question. I proceed to decide the case on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the revision at the instance of subsequent landlord was not maintainable as the landlord was not person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 provides that any person aggrieved by final order under Section 16 or under Section 19 of the Act may within 15 days of the date of such order prefer a revision to the District Judge on any one or more grounds mentioned in this section. No doubt at the time when the order of allotment was made Smt. Munni Devi was not the landlord of the premises in dispute. She purchased the premises in dispute subsequent to the order of allotment. Smt. Munni Devi on purchase of the house stepped into the shoes of the transferor and all the rights and liabilities in respect of the house in dispute passed on to her. The "person aggrieved" has not been defined in the Act. In fact, it is discomfiture of the person who may have suffered from an order under the provision. If the order of allotment had not been passed in accordance with law the subsequent transferee can challenge it within period prescribed. Smt. Munni Devi is, therefore, person aggrieved within meaning of Section 18 of the Act. In fact, it is discomfiture of the person who may have suffered from an order under the provision. If the order of allotment had not been passed in accordance with law the subsequent transferee can challenge it within period prescribed. Smt. Munni Devi is, therefore, person aggrieved within meaning of Section 18 of the Act. Smt. Munni Devi being person aggrieved was entitled to file revision against the order of allotment passed in favour of Smt. Munnit Devi. Thus, the revision filed by Smt. Munni Devi was maintainable in law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that in fact Smt. Munni Devi had purchased the house after the allotment order was passed and therefore she cannot challenge the order of allotment on the ground that there was no notice to the landlord. No doubt Smt. Munni Devi purchased the premises in dispute after the order of allotment was passed. The erstwhile landlord as well as Smt. Munni Devi both applied under sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Act for revocation of the order of allotment. Smt. Munni Devi having stepped into the shoes of transferor, was entitled to challenge the order of allotment on the ground that there was no notice to the erstwhile landlord. The revisional court has correctly held that in absence of notice to the erstwhile landlord the allotment order made in favour of petitioner was illegal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that in the present case although there is no express service of notice to erstwhile landlord but service of notice can be inferred from various facts and circumstances of this case and therefore view taken by the revisional court is erroneous. The erstwhile landlord had filed an affidavit stating that the notice was never refused either by him or by any adult member of his family. On basis of evidence on record the revisional court recorded finding that notice was neither personally served nor refused by the landlord and further it was not refused by any adult member of the family of the landlord. The said finding of the revisional court is correct. The aforesaid finding is a finding of fact and not open to challenge in the writ petition. 8. In view of above, there is no merit in writ petition. The said finding of the revisional court is correct. The aforesaid finding is a finding of fact and not open to challenge in the writ petition. 8. In view of above, there is no merit in writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case will be no order as to costs.