R. R. E. Trivedi, J. - (1.) IN this petition Shri P. K. Jain has already put in appearance for respondent no. 2. Considering the legal question INvolved in the writ petition, both the learned counsel have agreed that the petition may be heard and decided finally at this stage and filing of counter and rejoinder affidavits is not necessary.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that respondent no 2 Lt. Col. P. Mukherjee In June, 1984 1st out the accommodation In dispute, i.e. bungalow no. 268. Brooke Street, B. I. lines, Meerut Cannot to the petitioner on rent of Rs. 600/- per month. This letting In favour of the petitioner was without obtaining any allotment order from the Rent control authorities under section 16 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Reputation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) though the building was covered by the aforesaid Act Petitioner continued to occupy the building as tenant since then. Respondent no. 2, however, on 30-3-1992 filed an application under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act and prayed for release of the aforesaid building in his favour on the grounds state therein. On this application the Rent Control Inspector was directed to make a local Inspection and submit a report. Report was submitted on 25-5-1992. An objection to this report was filed by the 'petitioner on 26-6-1992. Petitioner same day also filed an objection against the release application of respondent no. 2. The petitioner and respondent no. 2 exchanged affidavits. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 7-10-1992 has declared that the premises In dispute is vacant. He has farther directed to publish the vacancy and to fix the case for evidence. Aggrieved by this order of declaration of vacancy, the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the constitution.' I have heard 'earned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents at length. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that as the accommodation In dispute was let out by respondent no. 2 in 1984 voluntarily and he Joined the petitioner in entering into a deal creating contract of tenancy in contravention of the provisions of the Act, he Is estopped In law to seek release of the same under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act It has been submitted that the contract of tenancy thus entered into though in contravention of the provisions of the Art. shall continue to be binding on petitioner and respondent no 2. and he cannot be allowed to resile from It In the present proceedings. It has been submitted that there Is no provision in then Act or the Rules framed therein creating a mandate that the Rent Control authorities must eject the petitioner who has admittedly entered Into possession of the house with consent of landlord paving rent to him. The learned counsel has placed reliance on cases-Nanak Ram v. Kundal Ral. AIR 1986 SC 1194 and Smt. Ram Sakhi Dwivedi v. Ramnkant Gupta. '1988 (2) ARC 164. Learned counsel for petitioner has further submitted that though initially the petitioner was permitted to occupy the accommodation In dispute In unauthorised manner In absence of an allotment order passed by the Rent Control authorities, he should not be ejected after such a long time since he has continued as tenant and paid rent. It has been submitted that the Rent Control authorities must exercise power reasonably and exercise of power reasonably includes that it should be exercised within reasonable time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a case. Mast Ram v. S. P. Pathak, AIR 1983 SC 1239. Next submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that as the respondent no. 2 voluntarily agreed and created tenancy in favour of the petitioner which Is still subsisting between them, for release of the accommodation In dispute for his bona fide need claimed by him. he should approach the prescribed authority under section 21 of the Act and the present proceedings are not legally maintainable and the respondent no. 2 cannot be allowed to short-circuit the provisions of the act at his whim. Learned counsel has placed reliance in case, Kedar Nath Gupta v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, 1988 (2) ARC 222.
(3.) LASTLY, it has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that there was no compliance of rule 8 by the Rent Control Inspector while making local inspection and submitting his report and the entire proceedings are vitiated on this ground alone. Learned counsel has submitted that the Order of respondent no 1 does not contain any reasons and discussion and It is a cryptic order causing serious miscarriage of justice as on the premises having been declared vacant, the petitioner shall be liable to ejectment. Learned counsel for respondent on the other hand, has submitted that it is admitted fact that accommodation in dispute was let out in favour of the petitioner In contravention of the provisions of the Act in June, 1984. His possession is unauthorised and shall continue to be unauthorised as declared by section 13 of the Act. The Kent Control and Eviction Officer has thus rightly declared the accommodation in dispute as vacant and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this case so far as the vacancy is concerned. The petitioner may apply for allotment of the building in his favour. Reliance has been placed in a judgment of this court in case Ram Charan v. 1st Additional District judge, Agra, 1991 (1) ARC 412.;