Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 418 (ALL)

Rajesh Kumar Verma v. State of U. P.

2006-02-10

ANJANI KUMAR

body2006
ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) SINCE the orders under challenge are between the same parties and raises common questions of facts and law, therefore, are being decided by a common judgment. ( 2 ) PETITIONER aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 31st may, 2003 whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the vacancy under the provisions of Section 12 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) and directed for notification of the vacancy in the accommodation in dispute. It is this order which is under challenge in the Writ Petition No. 30464 of 2004. In Writ Petition No. 30797 of 2005 the same petitioner challenges the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer releasing the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord pursuant to the declaration of vacancy in view of the order challenged in the Writ Petition No. 30464 of 2004 and the order passed by the revisional court whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. ( 3 ) NOW coming to the order dated 31st May, 2003 the petitioners case is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order challenged in the Writ petition No. 30464 of 2004 inasmuch as the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the accommodation in dispute. The brief facts are as under: ( 4 ) THE writ petitioner admits the respondents to be the landlord of the accommodation in dispute which according to the petitioner purchased from its erstwhile owner, Smt. Padmawati Misra. The case set up by the petitioner is that the accommodation in dispute was under the ownership of U. P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad which has allotted the same to Smt. Padmawati Misra and smt. Padmawati Misra used to pay the instalment of Rs. 123 per month. It is after the death of smt. Padmawati Misra that her husband became the owner who sold the accommodation in dispute to the present landlord by means of a registered sale deed. Petitioner has contended that they are tenants since when the accommodation In dispute was under construction. In these circumstances there is no question of any allotment order in favour of the petitioner. Padmawati Misra that her husband became the owner who sold the accommodation in dispute to the present landlord by means of a registered sale deed. Petitioner has contended that they are tenants since when the accommodation In dispute was under construction. In these circumstances there is no question of any allotment order in favour of the petitioner. They again reiterated that the provisions of "the Act" are not applicable to the present accommodation. The petitioners have prayed that in these circumstances the proceedings before the Rent Control and eviction Officer is wholly without jurisdiction. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner has been denied by the landlord. It has been stated by the landlord that the unauthorized occupant, rajesh Kumar himself has admitted that the provisions of the Act are applicable to the accommodation in dispute when he has deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act in the court of Munsif and are continuously depositing the rent under Section 30 of the Act. Thus, it is contended by the landlord that since the tenant himself has admitted and submitted to the jurisdiction of the procedure prescribed of the Act by depositing rent under Section 30 of the Act they are estopped from challenging that the provisions of the Act arc. not applicable to the accommodation in dispute. The accommodation in dispute is constructed according to the landlord sometime in 1970s and thus, the provisions of the Act are applicable. Learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of this Court in Satya Narain v. Rent Control and eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar and Ors. 2002 (49) ALR 163, and in the case of Munna Lal v. R. C. and E. O. 1998 (3) AWC 2. 164 (NOC) : 1998 (2) ARC 311, wherein in the case of Satya narain (supra) in para 6 has held as under: it Is not disputed that the petitioner himself approached the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) under section 30 of the Act and deposited the rent of the building in question In the said Court. The petitioner himself admitted that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the building in question inasmuch as the amount of rent could be deposited under Section 30 of the Act only when the provisions of the Act were applicable to the building in question. The petitioner himself admitted that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the building in question inasmuch as the amount of rent could be deposited under Section 30 of the Act only when the provisions of the Act were applicable to the building in question. The petitioner having admitted that the provision of the Act were applicable to the building in question, he is, thus, estopped from contending to the contrary and to assert that provisions of the Act were not applicable to the present case. ( 5 ) SIMILAR is the proposition of law declared by this Court in the case of Munna Lal (supra), thus, in my opinion the petitioner cannot escape the applicability of the provisions of "the Act" to the accommodation in dispute. The contention advanced on behalf of learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore, deserves to be rejected. On the question of the merits of the declaration of the vacancy the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has recorded the finding which in my opinion, learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the same are either perverse or are suffering from any error much less error apparent on the face of record. ( 6 ) IN this view of the matter, Writ Petition No. 30464 of 2004 deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ( 7 ) WITH regard to the fact that there is a vacancy and the order declaring vacancy has been upheld by me in this judgment, the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlord in my opinion, cannot be questioned by the petitioner in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Talib Hasan and Anr. v. 1st Additional district Judge, Nainital and Ors. 1986 ARC 1, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer relied upon the decision referred to in the Impugned order according to which it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the order of release since the petitioner has been held to be unauthorized occupant. ( 8 ) IN view of what has been stated above, both these writ petitions are dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. . .