High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Saroj v. Iith A.D.J.& Others - WRIT - A No. 6945 of 1984  RD-AH 1480 (22 November 2004)
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6945 of 1984
Smt.Saroj Gupta Vs. The XI Addl.District Judge, Rampur & others
Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.
This petition has been filed by the landlady for quashing the orders dated 05.05.1984 passed by XI th Addl. District Judge, Kanpur in Rent Revision No. 193 of 1983 whereby the revision has been dismissed and the order dated 21.02.1983 passed by the Rent Control Eviction Officer, Kanpur allotting the premises in dispute in favour of Prem Tripathi respondent no.3 has been affirmed.
The dispute relates to the house No. 15/215 Civil Lines Kanpur. It was owned by Smt.Saroj Gupta, the original petitioner. During pendency of the petition, the property has been sold in favour of Smt.Geeta and Smt.Sarla Gupta who have already been brought on record. It is alleged that Sri Tara Chand Jain was the tenant of the house in question comprising of accommodation consisting of seven rooms latrine, kitchen, bathroom and court-yard on the ground floor and three rooms, store, kitchen and open roof on the first floor. In the application filed by the respondent no.3 Sri Tripathi stated that Sri Tara Chand Jain, the tenant had vacated the premises about three years back as a result of which vacancy has been caused and since he had no accommodation to reside, the same may be allotted to him. On the said application, the proceedings were initiated and the report was called for from the Rent Control Inspector. Annexure-1 to the petition is the report of Rent Control Inspector in which it has been reported that the premises in dispute is lying vacant with locks from out side. The earlier tenant Tarachand Jain vacated the premises more than three years back. It was contended that the vacancy was diclared on the basis of said report by the Rent Control Eviction Officer on 14.02.1983. Subsequently vide order dated 21.02.1983 the Rent Control Eviction Officer allotted the premises in dispute in favour of the respondent no.3. Thereafter Rent Revision was filed by the landlady Smt.Saroj Gupta. It was registered as Rent Case No. 193 of 1983. Further the landlady also filed a review application u/s 16(5) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 before Rent Control & Eviction Officer. The XI th Addl. District Judge by order dated 05.05.1984 has dismissed the revision on the ground that the question raised in the revision can be better looked into and investigated in the review application filed before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer. Against the said order the present writ petition has been filed.
I have heard Sri P.N.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K.Mehrotra learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned Standing Counsel for other respondents.
The contention of Sri P.N.Khare learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlady is residing in Delhi and has not been served with any notice either by Rent Control Inspector before the time of inspection or by the Rent Control &Eviction Officer. before declaration of vacancy and after declaration of vacancy. Thus there was no compliance of Rules 8 and 9 of Rules framed under the Act and the impugned order is vitiated. On the other hand it is contended that Sri Suresh Chand Shukla who claimed himself as a caretaker of the house in question on behalf of landlady and had also made statement before Rent Control Inspector had full knowledge. Thus it cannot be alleged that there was no notice to the landlady. Without going into the question of validity and sufficiency of service of notice, the XI th Addl. District Judge had dismissed the revision with the observations that all the questions will be taken care of by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer in the review application. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 05.05.1984 passed by the revisional Court. It is still open to the landlady to establish before the Rent Control Eviction Officer as to whether the notice under law was duly served or not.
Sri P.N.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is likelihood that the record may not be available due to the long period of time. This contention cannot be accepted. The record will have to be traced out and if not available the same will be again reconstructed according to law. On mere assumption no direction can be issued for reconstruction of record. The law will take its own course in case of non-availability of original record.
In view of the observations made above, the writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.