K. M. Dayal, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed against an order dated 19th October, 1979 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on an application under Rule 22 clauses (b) & (f) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
(2.) IT appears that the opposite-party No. 1 moved an application. Annexure 'I' to the writ petition purporting to be under section 14 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The prayer made in that application was that the tenancy be regularised in respect of the disputed accommodation under section 14 of the Act. The contention of the tenant applicant was that he was a tenant in the disputed accommodation since 1965 and the rent for the aforesaid accommodation had been paid to the landlord upto October, 1978. The landlord never issued any receipt. The applicant had a Ration Card from that house. There was some dispute between the landlord and the tenant and, therefore, the applicant prayed for the regularisation of the tenancy under section 14 of the Act. That application was opposed by an affidavit by the landlord which is Annexure '2' to the writ petition. The case was posted for hearing on 25-5-1979. The applicant's arguments were heard and it was posted for judgment to be delivered on 8-6-1979. Annexure '3' to the writ petition shows that the same day the opposite-party appeared in the court subsequently. His argument was also heard and the case was ordered to be put up for judgment on 8-6-1979. On 8-6-1979, the judgment was given which is Annexure '4' to the writ petition. By that judgment the application of the tenant was rejected. Thereafter the tenant moved an application under Rule 22 clauses (b) & (f) framed under the Act. It was mentioned that the arguments of the opposite-party were heard on 25-5-1979, at the back of the applicant and the applicant was not afforded any opportunity of being heard and to reply the arguments of the landlord. That application has been allowed by the impugned order which is Annexure '7' to the writ petition. The present petition has been filed on the ground that no review of the order could be made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It is true that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no power to review his previous order on merits. His powers were confined to restoration and setting aside the exparte orders as contemplated by clauses (a) and (f) of Rule 22 of the Act. In the instant case, however, the situation was different. The order was passed after hearing the parties and not the ex-parte. Assuming that the case could be re-heard under section 151, Code of Civil Procedure read with clause (f) of Rule 22 of the Act, I find that the entire proceedings were not maintainable. No proceedings are contemplated under section 14 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. No order of regularisation can be passed under that section. Section 14 of the Act provides that if there was a sitting tenant on 15th July, 1972, with the consent of the landlord, he should be deemed to be an authorised tenant. The aforesaid section was amended by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976. By the amendment, the licensees and tenants who were in occupation on the . date of enforcement of the amended provisions, i. e. 5th July, 1976, they would also be deemed to be authorised tenants or licensees. The matter can be raised and decided in any proceeding, but no proceeding under section 14 of the Act is contemplated. The right that is given under section 14 can be questioned or enforced where the same is disputed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no jurisdiction to grant a declaration that the tenant or licensee has been in authorised occupation of any accommodation. That matter rests only with the Court which is entitled to adjudicate upon the same. Under these circumstances the application under section 14 of the Act and the entire proceedings consequent to it were mis-conceived. In the result, the present petition is allowed. The orders Annexures '4' and '7' and the entire proceedings are quashed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. --- Petition allowed.;