MAHARAJ KUMARI VIMLA DEVI Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER
LAWS(ALL)-1980-3-19
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 31,1980

MAHARAJ KUMARI VIMLA DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The Petitioner in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the owner and land-lady of the premises in dispute known as 'Oak-Bush' situate at Mussoorie. He has challenged the order dated October 13, 1978 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Mussoorie, by which a portion of the aforesaid premises has been declared vacant under the Act and proceedings for allotment have been directed to be taken in that regard. She has also challenged certain consequential orders passed subsequently, as a result of the aforesaid order dated October 13, 1978.
(2.) The Petitioner is the daughter of late His Highness Maharaja Ripuda-man Singh of Nabha and is resident of 34, Alipur Road, Delhi. The two premises popularly known as 'Oak' and Oak Bush' situate at Mussoorie are owned by the Petitioner. The present petition related to the premises 'Oak Bush'. The Petitioner regularly stays in these premises at the time of visits to Mussoorie. A Chaukidar/care-taker has been kept by her to lookafter the maintenance of these premises.
(3.) Smt. Saroj Panwar filed an application for allotment of both the premises, namely, 'Oak' and Oak Bush'. The need alleged by her was of running a school and hostel for backward and poor students. A report was submitted by the Rent Control Inspector, to which the Petitioner filed objections. Ultimately, an allotment order dated March 31, 1978 was made in favour of Smt. Saroj Panwar in respect of the premises 'Oak Bush' for use by her for residential purpose. This allotment order was passed upon the view taken that as per entries in the Conservancy register maintained by the Municipality S. Sri Bachan Singh and Dayal Singh were shown as being in occupation of some part of this premises, and consequently, in view of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act there was deemed vacancy and hence the premises were open to allotment. The case of the Petitioner that the house was in occupation and that her luggage and other effects were always there and that the property was never let out, was not accepted.;


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