Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 210 (ALL)

Sardar Manjeet Singh v. A. D. J. , Mainpuri

2013-01-16

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Called in revised. None appeared on behalf of petitioner to press this writ petition. 2. This writ petition was earlier decided vide judgment and order dated 30.9.2002 referring to Full Bench Decision of this Court in Nootan Kumar and others Vs. 2nd Addl. District Judge, Banda and others 1993 (2) ARC 204. This Court held that the release order passed by Rent Control and Eviction officer (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") warrants no interference. The aforesaid decision has been set aside by Apex Court vide judgement dated 28.11.2003 in view of the fact that Full Bench decision in Nootan Kumar (surpa) was subject matter before Apex Court in Nutan Kumar and others Vs. IInd Addl. District Judge and others (2002) 8 SCC 31 and the said Apex Court's decision was not taken into note by this Court, hence, the matter has been remanded to be considered in the light of Apex Court's decision in Nutam Kumar (surpa). 3. I have perused the record. 4. The dispute relates to a shop, respondent no. 3 whereof is landlord. Petitioner claims to be in possession of the said shop since 1991 without any letter of appointment, though it has not been disputed that shop in question was within the ambit of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). The landlord moved an application on 15.5.2001 seeking release of accommodation by filing application under Section 16 (1) of Act, 1972 whereupon RCEO called report from Rent Control Inspector and held that possession of petitioner being unauthorized and illegal, he has no right to contest the release application and has allowed the release application. 5. So far as authority of petitioner to possess shop in question is concerned, it cannot be disputed that he has occupied the said premises in violation of provisions contained in Sections 11 and 13 of Act, 1972 and his possession was totally unauthorized. Between respondent no. 5. So far as authority of petitioner to possess shop in question is concerned, it cannot be disputed that he has occupied the said premises in violation of provisions contained in Sections 11 and 13 of Act, 1972 and his possession was totally unauthorized. Between respondent no. 3 and petitioner, if any right is being claimed on the basis of alleged agreement privately executed between them, in view of Apex Court decision in Nootan Kumar (Supra) such agreement may be looked into but that would not make the possession of petitioner legal in respect to accommodation in question since he has occupied the same without any letter of appointment, and, therefore, it is void-ab-initio in view of Sections 11 and 13 of Act, 1972. 6. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court presided by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. (as His Lordship then was), while answering the reference made by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 37767 of 2003 (Ajay Pal Singh Vs. District Judge, Meerut and others), held that an unauthorized occupant has no right to challenge release of accommodation in question in favour of landlord. 7. In view of above, I find no justification to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition. 8. Writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed.