High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Basant Lal v. Brijesh Srivastava And Others - WRIT - A No. 9769 of 2006  RD-AH 9168 (9 May 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9769 of 2006.
Basant Lal ............Petitioner.
Brijesh Srivastava and others ......Respondents.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenges the order passed by the revisional authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (In short 'the Act') dated 28th November, 2005, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of 'the Act' was dismissed by the revisional authority and the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 8th September, 2004 declaring the accommodation in dispute vacant and the order dated 17th December, 2004 directing the the accommodation in question be released in favour of the landlord, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure Nos. '10', '8' and '7', respectively to the writ petition.
The brief facts of the present case are that the proceedings for allotment were initiated on the application of Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, who filed an application for allotment with regard to house no. 75/55, North Malaka, Allahabad, accommodation in dispute. The Rent Control Inspector submitted its report on the direction of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that erstwhile landlord Naval Chandra Tripathi had sold the accommodation in question by registered sale deed dated 16th April, 2003 in favour of Virendra Narayan, which was found in the occupation of Basant Lal, the petitioner in this petition, without any allotment order. The Rent Control Inspector further stated in his report that the erstwhile tenant Smt. Kamla Devi has vacated the accommodation in year 1988 and thereafter the present occupant Basant Lal occupied the same without any allotment order. The petitioner made a statement before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that he is in occupation of the accommodation in question and that he is residing along with his brothers in the adjoining two rooms for past more than 15 years. Since the occupation of the petitioner was found after 5th July, 1976, the report submitted that the accommodation seems to be legally vacated, therefore the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued notices to all concern. All of them filed their respective objections and after considering the material on record and
after hearing the parties, including petitioner, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has found as of fact that the present petitioner is occupying the accommodation in question without any allotment order and his occupation commences after the year 1988 when the erstwhile tenant Smt. Kamla Devi has vacated the same. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer therefore declared the vacancy and directed the vacancy to be notified by his order dated 8th September, 2004. Consequent to the declaration of the vacancy, the landlord filed an application for release of the accommodation in question in their favour to which objections were filed by the petitioner. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after hearing the parties and going through the evidence on record released the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord vide its order dated 17th December, 2004.
Aggrieved by the order dated 8th September, 2004 and the order dated 17th December, 2004, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 18 of 'the Act' before revisional authority. The revisional authority after considering the materials and evidence on record have held that the revision ha no force and is accordingly dismissed. It is these three orders which are challenged by the petitioner by means of present writ petition. In view of the law laid down in the case reported in 2002 (2) A.R.C., 645 - Nutan Kumar and others Vs. II nd Additional District Judge and others, wherein it has been held that if a person is found to be occupying accommodation in question without any allotment order, his occupation is that of un-authorised occupant / trespasser, irrespective whether there is a contract between the person concerned and the landlord and the contract so entered between the landlord and the person concerned may be binding between the parties but it is not binding to the authorities under 'the Act'. On the question of release of the accommodation in question, the revisional authority found that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1986 (1) A.R.C., 1 - Talib Hasan and another Vs. 1 st Additional District Judge, Nainital and others, the matter of release is between the landlord and Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the un-authorised occupant like petitioner or the applicant for allotment has no say in the matter of release. In arriving at this conclusion, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has relied upon the decision in the case of Talib Hasan and another (supra) and the decision reported in 2005 (60) A.L.R., 661 - Abdul Rahim and others Vs. XII Additional District Judge,
Allahabad and others.
I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and gone through the orders impugned in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that any of the orders impugned in the present writ petition in any way either suffer from any error, much less manifest error of law, so as warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.