PROPERTY AGENTS Vs. SHAINSHER BAHADUR AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1964-4-29
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 28,1964

Property Agents Appellant
VERSUS
Shainsher Bahadur Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

PREM PRAKASH VIRMANI VS. STATE GOVERNMENT [LAWS(ALL)-1967-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
WAHID HUSAIN VS. THE RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1965-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL AGARWAL VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-1979-8-7] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a special appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge allowing a writ petition filed by Shamsher Bahadur, respondent No. 1, and quashing the order of the State Government passed under S. 7-A of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and granting certain consequential reliefs.
(2.)FIRM Ganesh Das Ram Gopal, respondent No. 3, is the proprietor of a building known as Halwasiya Court situate at Hazratganj Lucknow. The ground floor of this building consisted of a big hall and two small shops. The big hall was in the occupation of respondent No. 3 but the two shops had been rented out. After the tenants of the two shops vacated them the respondent No. 3 demolished the partition walls and included the shops also in the hall. The original building had admittedly been constructed long before the Act came into force. It appears that the respondent No. 3, after the modification of the accommodation, did not desire to occupy it itself and wanted to let it out. The respondent No. 3 did not, as required by S. 7(1) of the Act, give intimation of the vacancy or intended vacancy to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and thereby rendered itself liable to prosecution under S. 8 of the Act. Without giving such information and without any allotment order having been passed in respect of this accommodation, the respondent No. 3, on July 31, 1958, executed a lease for three years in respect of this accommodation in favour of the appellant. Firm Property Agents. This lease provided for payment of a rent of Rs. 500 per month by the lessee and it also contained a clause for renewal of the lease for a further period of three years. It may be mentioned here that this lease deed was executed by respondent No. 3 but it was not signed by or on behalf of the appellant.
On October 12, 1958, the appellant executed a sub-lease of this accommodation in favour of Shamsher Bahadur for five years at a rent of Rs. 1,650 per month. It is important to notice that even at this stage the appellant did not obtain the permission of the District Magistrate as required by S. 7(3) of the Act for subletting the accommodation and rendered itself liable to prosecution under S. 8 of the Act. When the Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to know that Shamsher Bahadur had entered into possession without any allotment order from him, he, on December S. 1958, issued a notice to respondent No. 3 to show cause why it should not be prosecuted under S. 8 of the Act for failing to notify the vacancy. On the same date he issued a notice to Shamsher Bahadur under S. 7-A(1) of the Act to show cause why he should not be evicted from the accommodation. In reply to the notice received by it, the respondent No. 3, on December 11, 1958, wrote to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer stating that the accommodation was a new construction which did not fall within the purview of the Act and that as such no permission of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was necessary for inducting a tenant. On December 22, 1938, the respondent No. 3 again wrote to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer stating that if he was pleased to hold that its contention made in the previous letter was not correct, the accommodation may be allotted.

(3.)IN response to the notice under S. 7-A(1) received by him, Shamsher Bahadur, on December 20, 1958, wrote to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer stating that the landlord had assured him that the accommodation was a new construction which was exempted from the operation of the Act and that on that representation he had accepted a lease of the same without an allotment order and prayed that the notice be withdrawn and an allotment order made in his favour. Neither the respondent No. 3 nor Shamsher Bahadur gave any information to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer about the lease executed on July 31, 1958, or about the sub-lease executed on October 12, 1958. After considering the replies of respondent No. 3 and of Shamsher Bahadur in response to the notices issued to them and after considering the question whether the accommodation was governed by the Act, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on January 17, 1959, passed an order under S. 7(2) of the Act directing respondent No. 3 to let out the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur. Though the allotment had been made tit the request both of respondent No. 3 and of Shamsher Bahadur, the respondent No. 3, on February 17, 1959, wrote to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer bringing to his notice the fact that it had leased out the accommodation on July 31, 1958, to the appellant and that the appellant had sublet the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur and prayed that the allotment order be amended by ordering the appellant to sublet the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.