RAM KUMAR Vs. VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition a caveat has been filed by Shri Pramod Kumar Jain and he has put in appearance for respondent no. 2. Both the learned counsel for parties are agreed that the petition may be decided finally at this stage as only questions of law are involved for deciding the present petition.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that respondent no. 2 let out a part of house no. i60. Bankers Street, Meerut Cantt in favour of petitioner Ram Kumar in 1981 This portion was in occupation of the petitioner as tenant without any allotment order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner continued as tenant since 1981. However, some litigation was initiated between the parties. Apprehending that the petitioner may be evicted, he filed an application for allotment of the accommodation in dispute in his favour on 18-8-1990 In this application for allotment, the petitioner stated that he is tenant of the building for the last nine years. The landlord had promised to get it allotted In his favour. However, he now wants to dispossess the petitioner and case he Is ejected, he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury hence the house may be allotted in his favour. On this application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 26-7-1991 declared the accommodation in dispute vacant in view of the admitted fact between the parties that the house was let out without any allotment order in favour of the petitioner and such a possession could be only unauthorised under the provisions of the Act. On the accommodation in dispute being declared vacant, landlord filed an application under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act for release of the same in his favour. Respondent No 2 landlord filed affidavits in support of his application for release. The petitioner had also 61filed affidavits opposing the release sought by the respondent no. 2 Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 26-9-1991 rejected the release application with the finding that the release application filed by the respondent no. 2 has not been filed in good faith, as the petitioner was allowed by him to occupy the accommodation as tenant and he is living there for the last nine years. The landlord never applied before for release of the accommodation in dispute. The application was given only when the accommodation was declared vacant in consequence of the application made by the petitioner for allotment. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer further found that the need for release has been stated regarding the members of his family which is also incorrect, as the sons and daughters-in-law and grand-daughters mentioned in the application are living in a house situate In Shastri Nagar. It has been stated that in Shastri Nagar, son of the respondent no. 2 has acquired two houses. By another order dated 28-9-1991, the accommodation in dispute was allotted in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) SRI P. K. Jain on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner's possession was of a prospective allottee and he could not be allowed to contest the application for release mowed by the respondent no. 2. Reliance has been placed on Talib Hassan v. 1st Addl. District Judge, Nainital, 1986 (1) ARC 1 (FB).