Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3625 (ALL)

Manoj Kumar Shukla v. Additional City Magistrate

2010-12-01

SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2010
JUDGMENT : Shashi Kant Gupta, J. – By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 30.5.2009 (Annexure No. 4), 2.7.2009 (Annexure No. 6) passed by the Respondent No. 1, Additional City Magistrate 2nd /Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar and order dated 21.10.2010 (Annexure No. 9) passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Kanpur Nagar in the Rent Revision No. 35 of 2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows; An application dated 12.9.2007 under Section 15 (1) of the Act was filed by the landlord-respondent No. 2 in respect of House No. 361 Harisen-ganj, Private Shop No. 86, Police Station Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar ( hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed premises'). On the said application, the rent control officer called for a report from Rent control inspector. The rent control inspector, after issuing notice to the petitioner under Section 8 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Rules, 1972(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), inspected the building and? after recording the statement of the landlord-respondent No. 2 has submitted its report. Subsequent thereto, the vacancy of the disputed premises was declared under the Act on 30.5.2009 and the release order dated 2.7.2009 was passed on an application filed by the landlord-respondent No. 2 under Section 16 (1)(b) of the Act. Thereafter a revision was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.10.2010. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the premises was inspected by the rent control inspector behind his back without giving any notice to the petitioner and the order declaring the vacancy of the said premises has also been passed ex-parte in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the petitioner is a tenant of the disputed premises and is entitled for the benefit as provided under Section 14 of the Act. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. He further submits that the petitioner is a tenant of the disputed premises and is entitled for the benefit as provided under Section 14 of the Act. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. A bare perusal of the record goes to show that notice under Rules 8 (2) of the Rules was issued to the petitioner was served upon him personally through the process server on 18.9.2007 and despite the service of notice under Rule 8 (2) of the Rules, the petitioner did not appear at the time of inspection? of the premises.? Thereafter, before the declaration of? the vacancy, a notice was issued by the Respondent No. 1 to the petitioner to file his objections.? However, the said notice returned back with the endoresement "Vyapar ke Silsile Me Bahar Gaye Hai" and thereafter another notice was sent through registered post which returned back to the sender with the endoresement 'Not Claimed'.? When the petitioner did not appear before the court to file his objection, the court below directed for publication of the notice in a daily news paper 'Lok Jan Samachar'.? Despite the said publication, the petitioner did not appear before the court below, as such, the court below declared the vacancy of the disputed premises and later on it was released under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act in favour of the landlord.? 6. The aforesaid facts clearly goes to show that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to appear before the court below but he deliberately avoided from participating in the proceedings, as such, it cannot be said that the principle of natural justice was violated. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is not having any allotment order in his favour. As far as Section 14 of the Act is concerned, it is suffice to say that the provisions of Section 14 of the Act are not applicable in respect to those premises which situated in the? cantonment area.?? Since the petitioner is occupying the premises without any allotment order, his status would be treated as an unauthorized occupant in view of the Section 13 of the Act. Thus, the court below was fully justified in declaring the vacancy of the said premises. The findings of fact recorded by the court below are based on record. cantonment area.?? Since the petitioner is occupying the premises without any allotment order, his status would be treated as an unauthorized occupant in view of the Section 13 of the Act. Thus, the court below was fully justified in declaring the vacancy of the said premises. The findings of fact recorded by the court below are based on record. The courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while declaring the vacancy of the disputed premises and allowing the release application in favour of the landlord. This Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the court below unless it is found that that the conclusions drawn by the courts below are erroneous, manifestly illegal or without any jurisdiction. 8. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.? 9. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders.?? 10. In the result, the petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition Dismissed.