Decided on February 03,1955

Shri Badri Das Appellant
The District Magistrate And Ors. Respondents


Brij Mohan Lall, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Badri Prasad. He purchased a certain building consisting of a residential portion and two shops, from one Govind Ram. The shops are in the occupation of tenants. There is no dispute about them in this case and they may be left out of account. Govind Ram was himself in possession of residential portion and the agreement between him and the Petitioner was that actual possession of the said portion would be handed over to the Petitioner. The sale deed was executed on the 25th of August, 1953 and the consideration was paid to the vendor on that very day, but it became apparent to both parties on that day that the vendor would not be in a position to hand over actual vacant possession of the residential portion to the Petitioner. He, therefore, deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000 with the Petitioner in order to assure him that he intended in good faith to actually carry out his promise of giving vacant possession. On the deposit being made the Petitioner permitted him to continue in possession. It was not till as late as the 5th of August 1954 i.e., almost one year after the sale, that actual possession was surrendered by the vendor to the Petitioner. Thereupon the Petitioner returned the deposit of Rs. 1,000/ - .
(2.) THE Petitioner's version is that he took actual possession, that his nephew Chaturbhuj Das began to Jive in the disputed portion of the house and started its repairs. On the 7th of August 1954 Pabbar Ram, opposite party No. 3, arrived on the scene and forcibly entered the house, claiming that the house had been allotted to him by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. There was some row and information reached the police authorities who appeared on the scene and put their own lock on the house, dispossessing both parties. On the 8th of August 1954, i.e., the very next day the police authorities removed their own lock and handed over possession to opposite party No. 3. The Petitioner has come up to this Court and he prays that (a) a writ in the nature of certiorari may issue to quash the Allotment Order No. A/41/ 54, dated 7th August, 1954; and (b) a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue commanding the opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to restore status quo ante by dispossessing the opposite party No. 3 and placing the applicant in possession over House No. .94, Saidwara, Ghazipur.
(3.) THE first question that arises for decision is whether the allotment order was valid or not. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner on the authority of a Division Bench case of this Court, reported in Sri Lachhman Das v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly, 1953 A.W.R. (H.C.) 125, that where a vendor sells the property and hands over possession to the vendee, the accommodation does not fall vacant and the Rent Control and Eviction authorities have no jurisdiction to allot it to anyone. I have gone through this ruling and I am of the opinion that it has not laid down any proposition in such general terms. What had happened in that case was that the vendor had sold the house and given immediate possession to the vendee. In those circumstances the Bench held that the accommodation had not fallen vacant. What has happened in the present case is that the vendor expressed his inability to hand over immediate possession and the Petitioner was reconciled to the vendor continuing in possession of the property sold. He submitted to this state of affairs for almost a year. During this period the vendor was a licensee from the Petitioner and was continuing as such.;

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