High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Sushila Devi Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 30391 of 2003  RD-AH 6990 (30 March 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29069 of 1992
Surya Prakash Singh Versus District Judge, Allahabad and others
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33314 of 1995
Trijugi Narain Sinha and others Vs. R.C.&E.O., Allahabad & Others
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30391 of 2003
Smt. Sushila Devi Singh & another Vs. State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
All the substitution applications are allowed.
Property in dispute is residential in nature and is situate at 38 Balrampur House, Mumfordganj, Allahabad. The total extent of accommodation of the property in dispute is four rooms, three verandahs, one kitchen, one bathroom, two latrines, one storeroom, one courtyard and front lawn on the ground floor as is mentioned in the report of R.C.I dated 12.2.1990 annexure 1 to the first writ petition.
Vacancy of the property in dispute was declared by R.C & E.O, Allahabad on 30.7.1990. Thereafter on 13.8.1990, it was allotted to Surya Prakash Singh (S.P.Singh in short) original petitioner in the first writ petition since deceased and survived by his widow Sushila Singh and his daughter Anamika Singh. The case before R.C & E.O was registered as case No. 32 of 1990, T.N.Sinha Vs. S.P.Singh. In the allotment order no rent was fixed. Against allotment order, landlords Trijugi Narain Sinha (T.N.Sinha in short) and Suresh Narain Sinha (S.N.Sinha in short) filed revision being R.C Revision No. 194 of 1990. District Judge, Allahabad through judgment and order dated 16.4.1992, allowed the revision only and only on the ground that R.C & E.O in the allotment order dated 13.8.1990 had not fixed any rent. The matter was remanded to R.C. & E.O through order dated 16.4.1992 which has been challenged through first writ petition. In the revision landlords had taken other please also. They also filed writ petition against the said order of revisional court being writ petition No. 24596 of 1992. The said writ petition was disposed of on 9.6.1992 and it was directed that landlords were at liberty to take all the points which they had raised in the memorandum of revision and Rent Control and Eviction Officer should consider the said points. The revisional court by order dated 16.4.1992 had set-aside the allotment order in favour of S.P.Singh dated 13.8.1990 hence landlords filed application for possession under section 18(3) of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972. First writ petition was dismissed in default on 24.3.1993 and thereafter it was restored on 12.9.2005. After dismissal in default of the said writ petition landlords pressed their application for redelivery of possession under Section 18(3) of the Act. Through order dated 6.7.1995 R.C. & E.O refused to deliver the possession under section 18(3) of the Act until final decision of the entire matter in pursuance of remand order dated 16.4.1992 passed by the revisional court. Through the second writ petition of 1995, order dated 6.7.1995 has been challenged. Order dated 30.7.1990 declaring the vacancy was also sought to be challenged thereafter through amendment in the said writ petition.
On 4.9.99 landlords filed release application under section 16(b) of the Act before R.C. & E.O. R.C. & E.O, Allahabad through order dated 7.9.2000, rejected the release application (the case had been registered as case No. 83 of 1995 T.N.Sinha and others Vs. S.P.Singh on the file of R.C. & E.O, Allahabad). Against order dated 7.9.2000, rejecting the release application landlords filed R.C Revision No. 964 of 2000. XVIII A.D.J Allahabad through judgment and order dated 21.5.2001, allowed the revision, set-aside the judgment and order dated 7.9.2000 passed by R.C. & E.O and allowed the release application of the landlords. Landlords have stated that they were residing in a rented house and were paying Rs. 5000/- per month as rent. R.C. & E.O while rejecting the release application of the landlord had given a very strange reason. R.C. & E.O stated that the pension of the landlord T.N.Sinha was only Rs. 6367/- hence it was not possible for him to pay Rs. 5000/- as rent. R.C. & E.O further held that in case T.N.Sinha was interested in residing at Allahabad then he should have taken some house on lesser rent. The reasoning given by the R.C. & E.O was so unreasonable that it could not be sustained. T.N.Sinha one of the landlords stated that he had retired from the post of Assistant Commercial Manager, Northern Railways in July 1992 from Delhi and was residing at Allahabad in a rental house. It was also stated in Para 7 of the release application that he had to pay Rs. 65000/- as penal rent for over staying in official accommodation after his retirement provided to him during his employment at Delhi. Tenant had not paid single penny as rent, landlord was residing in a rented house, still R.C. & E.O held that need of landlord was not bonafide. There could not be a better case for bonafide need than pleaded and proved by the landlords in the instant case.
Through third writ petition of 2003, widow of S.P.Singh has challenged the order of the revisional court dated 21.5.2001 through which landlords revision has been allowed and their release application has also been allowed. I do not find least error in the order of the revisional court dated 21.5.2001 allowing the release application of the landlords. The order of R.C. & E.O rejecting the release application dated 7.9.2000 was patently erroneous in law and utterly unjust.
Third writ petition (Writ Petition No. 30391 of 2003) is therefore dismissed.
As release order in favour of the landlord has been held to be valid hence second writ petition of 1995 has become infructuous.
Accordingly it is also dismissed as infructuous.
As far as first writ petition of 1992 is concerned, I do not find any error in the order of the revisional court dated 16.4.1992 through which matter was remanded on the ground that R.C. & E.O had not fixed any rent as required by section 16(9) of the Act. Without rent there cannot be any tenancy (section 105 T.P. Act).
Before allotment release is to be considered. The property in dispute has been rightly released in favour of the landlords hence there is no question of considering the allotment application. The order-dated 16.4.1992 has been complied with, as release application of the landlord was considered afterwards and rejected by R.C. & E.O but allowed by the revisional court hence writ petition No. 29069 of 1992 is also dismissed.
R.C. & E.O is directed to deliver possession of the property in dispute to the landlords forthwith on the application under section 18(3) of the Act. Any laxity on the part of R.C. & E.O will not be appreciated by this court. Under interim order some amount has been paid by the petitioners of first and third writ petitions. With effect from today they must be liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month till the date of actual vacation. The said amount may be recovered under Rule 24 of the Rules famed under the Act and for the said purposed certified copy of this judgment shall be treated to be the certificate of recovery in Form G under Rule 24 (2) of the Rules framed under the Act.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.