High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Daljee Singh v. Thespecial Judge And Others - WRIT - A No. 12234 of 1995  RD-AH 18409 (1 November 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12234 of 1995
The Special Judge/Addl.District Judge,Ghazipur and others
Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.2.1995 passed by the Addl.District Judge, Ghazipur in Revision No.127 of 1993 whereby the revision filed by the respondent no.3 has been allowed and the revision no.131 of 1993 filed by the respondent no.4 has been accordingly disposed of.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was a prospective allottee of the shop no.13/1 mohalla Saraypukta district Ghazipur which belonged to the respondent no.3. The vacancy of the shop was declared on 3.7.1992 and the release application filed by the Sarvakar of respondent no.3 on the ground of personal need was rejected on 27.11.1992. The revision preferred by the said sarvakar of the respondent no.3 was dismissed by the District Judge, Ghazipur on 18.12.1992. The writ petition filed against that revisional order was also dismissed on 7.1.1993. Upon rejection of the said petition the respondent no.3 again applied for release of the shop in question which was again rejected on 5.8.1993 holding that the respondent landlord's need was neither genuine nor bonafide. It was at that stage that the petitioner and respondent no.4 applied for allotment of the shop in their favour and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Ghazipur allotted the shop in favour of the petitioner by order dated 27.8.1993. Against the aforesaid order of allotment, the respondent no.3( landlord) as also respondent no.4 (prospective allottee) filed two revisions. The revision filed by the respondent no.3
landlord was allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 15.2.1995.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the revisional court has committed an illegality in as much as the release application of the respondent landlord on the ground of his personal need had been rejected twice and the said rejection order had attained finality up to the High Court. Consequently the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner was in accordance with law and the revisional court has illegally upset the finding recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has considered the genuine and bonafide need of the petitioner while passing the order of allotment in his favour.
Upon a perusal of the impugned judgment it is seen that the revisional court has considered the provision of section 16(2) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and recorded that the rent from the entire building including the shop available to the respondent no.3 ( landlord trustee) was Rs.54/- per month and apart from the said income the trust had no other income. Consequently it found that the trustee had entered into an agreement of sale of the sale of the premises for a sale consideration of Rs.198000/- so that the trustee may be able to perform the daily Puja of the deity from the interest of the aforesaid sale consideration. To such effect the respondent no.3 trustee had made an application dated 22.1.1993 and the revisional court found that the purpose for which the release was being sought was totally different from the purpose which was shown in the earlier two release applications made by the respondent no.3 landlord. The revisional court therefore, found that the application for release which is based upon a different ground was maintainable and ought to have been considered on its merit by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The revisional court proceeded to decide the said need of the respondent no.3 on its own merit. It was found that under provision of sub section
2 of section 16 of the Act the landlord who is trustee of a public charitable trust can seek release of the building for the object of the truste. The revisional court while interpreting the aforesaid provision found that the income of the trustee from the building in question was Rs.54/- per month and the trust had no other income. Consequently, the daily Puja of the deity for which the trust has been constituted could not be performed by the meagre income. The trust therefore, applied for release on the ground that it would be selling the property in a vacant position so as to get sufficient sale consideration and from the interest thereon it would be in a position to perform the daily Puja of the deity. The revisional court therefore found that the application dated 22.1.1993 made by the trustee was proper and it was for the purpose of the object of the trust. It has proceeded to set aside the order dated 15.8.1993 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and released the premises in question in favour of the respondent trust.
When the present writ petition was filed an order dated 8.5.1995 had been passed by this court wherein it was provided that the trust can alienate the property provided it obtains permission from the District Judge concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in position to inform the court as to whether the property in question has been alienated by the respondent trust. None appears on behalf of the respondent trust.
Having perused the impugned order and the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner it can not be disputed that the trust requires fund for its object which according to the application dated 22.1.1993 was for the purpose of performing daily Puja of the deity. The finding recorded by the revisional court that a sum of Rs.54/- per month which was the income of the trust from the rent of the premises in question was very meagre and the object of the trust
could not be satisfied by the said income. Consequently considering the fact that a registered agreement of sale had been executed by the trust in favour of another person therefore the trust was in position to get the fund from the sale consideration and thereby would be able to perform the daily Puja of the deity from the interest of the aforesaid amount. In so far as taking permission for alienating the property from the District Judge is concerned the said permission if granted by the District Judge would be after taking into consideration the interest of the trust and only then the District Judge would permit the sale of the property. Such being the circumstances the impugned judgment and order can not be said to be illegal or erroneous in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner was admittedly a prospective allottee who obtained the allotment order which was challenged in the revision by the respondent trust. The application dated 22.1.1993 made by the trust was not considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on its merits. The revisional court has rightly considered the same which it could do since the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had failed to consider the same.
No error can be found in the impugned judgment and order dated 15.2.1995. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.