- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. After nomination by order dated 20th February, 2001 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this writ petition has come up for hearing before this Court Sri Tarun Verma appeared on behalf of the petitioner while the contesting respondent No. 2 Sheetal Singh was represented by Sri Rajesh Tandon, Senior Advocated assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna. Both the learned Counsel for the parties had agreed that this petition be heard and decided on the basis of material available on record. After nearing the learned Counsel for the parties the writ petition has been dismissed by order dated 26th February, 2001 with the observation that the reasoned orders shall follow. This detailed and proceeds to record the reasons for the dismissal of the writ petition.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the vacancy or otherwise of the first floor accommoda tion of house No. 665 K. L. Kydganj, Al lahabad. Sheetal Singh the respondent No. 2 moved an application for allotment of the said accommodation. After obtain ing the report of the Rent Control Inspec tor, dated 20-5-1997, notice were issued to the concerned parties. Ultimately, after taking into consideration the objections filed by the petitioner and the contentions put forth on behalf of the prospective allot tee and the landlord, the accommodation in question was declared vacant by order dated 2-2-2001 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (I), Allahabad, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner, who claims himself to be the sitting tenant of the dispute accom modation, by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is an indubitable fact that the one Hira Lal was originally the owner of the premises No. 665, K. L. Kydganj, Al lahabad. Subsequently, the said property was purchased by Mahesh Kumar. The case of the petitioner is that he came in occupation of the disputed accommoda tion in view of the fact that his father Sri Lal Chand had close relation and affinity with the previous owner and was also look ing after his property as care taker. It is stated that the petitioner has been deposit ing rent under Section 30of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Misc. Case No. 4 of 1997 in the Court of Munisf/civil Judge (Junior Division), Al lahabad. Sri Tarun Varma strenuously ar gued that since the petitioner is a sitting tenant, he could not be labelled as an un authorized occupant and the order of vacancy passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (I), Allahabad is illegal and consequently no proceedings for allot ment of the accommodation in the absence of vacancy can be initiated. The various submissions made by Sri Tarun Varma have been repelled by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 appellant for allotment. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner does not have any order of allotment in his favour. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he has been occupying the disputed accommodation with the consent of the landlord and that his pos session stands protected under Section 14 of the Act. The theory that the petitioner has been living in the disputed accom modation as a tenant after the year 1976 is belled from various documents brought on record. The petitioner himself moved an application for allotment of the disputed accommodation on 15-11-1994. In this ap plication, it has nowhere been mentioned that the petitioner is in occupation of any other portion of house No. 665, K. L. Kydganj, Allahabad. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application for allotment moved on 15-11- 1994 was in respect of some portion other than the one which has been declared vacant is wide off the mark. The petitioner had filed an application dated 15-4-1998 with a counter affidavit before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in Case No. 4 of 1997, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In Para graph 11, the petitioner has asserted that he started living in the portion in dispute along with his wife after his marriage. The marriage of the petitioner undoubtedly was solemnized in 1995. Therefore, from the assertion made by the petitioner on affidavit, it is clear that he came in occupa tion of the disputed accommodation sometimes in the year 1995 or thereafter. A diametrically opposite stand has been taken by the petitioner is his rejoinder affidavit filed by him before the Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, in which he has asserted that though his name found place in the Ration Card and Voters' list from house No. 37 P. O. Kydganj, Allahabad (another house), he had taken the portion in dispute for only study purpose at that time because lock and key were with his father who looked after all the affairs and manage ment on behalf of the previous owner. The absurdity of the conflicting claim made by the petitioner is obvious. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was ever inducted as a tenant in the year 1976 or thereafter. In any case, even if it be taken that the petitioner was let into pos session of the disputed accommodation as a tenant by the landlord or his care taker, it would not improve his case inasmuch as, the possession and occupation of the petitioner would clearly be in contraven tion of and prohibition as adumbrated in Section 11 of the Act. Section 13 provides that where a landlord or a tenant ceases to occupy a building or part thereof, no per son shall occupy it in any capacity on his behalf, or otherwise than under an order of allotment or release under Section 16 and if a person so purports to occupy it, he shall without prejudice to the provisions of Sec tion 31, be deemed to be an unauthorized occupant of such building or part. The provisions of Sections 11 and 13 and other allied sections came to be interpreted in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Nootan Kumar and others v. IInd Addition al District Judge, Banda and others, 1993 Supreme Court and Full Bench Rent Cases 334. It was held that an agreement involving transaction of either letting by the landlord or occupation by any person of any building except in pursuance of an order of allotment or release being prohibited has to be treated to have been invalidated by the statute rending in void and unenforceable in a Court of law. The various other relevant decisions have been discussed by this Court in the case of Ved Prakash Agarwal v. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others, 1998 (2) ARC 583, as well as the subsequent decision in the case of Usman Gani Khan v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad and jive others, 1999 (2) A. R. C. 192. The ratio of the decisions aforesaid clearly applies to the facts of the present case to record the finding that the petitioner is an un authorized occupant.
(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY, the petitioner having come in occupation of the disputed accommodation in contravention of the provisions contained in Chapter II of the Act, pertaining to regulation of letting, is to be termed as an unauthorized occupant. The order of vacancy passed by the learned Rent Control and Eviction Officer I, Allahabad does not suffer from any legal infirmity and consequently, no intervention of this Court in the circumstances is warranted. In the result, the writ petition turned out to be merit less and has been accordingly dismissed on 26-2- 2001. Petition dismissed. .;