R.L. Gulati, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE third Respondent, Sri Ram -eshwar Prasad Agarwal is the landlord of the accommodation in dispute which Consists of two shops on the ground -floor in House No. 61/203, Sita Ram Mohal, Canal Road, Kanpur. It is alleged by the Petitioner that lie is in occupation of this accommodation as a tenant for the last several years and has been paying rent to the landlord. The landlord on the other hand, has stated that the accommodation in dispute was previously in the tenancy of one Ashok Kumar, who vacated it sometime in 1970 and thereafter the Petitioner got possession over it as a trespasser. Admittedly, there is no allotment order in favour of the Petitioner, although he alleges to have mace an application to the RC and EO for allotment in his favour to regularise his tenancy. The landlord has alleged that when he came to know that the Petitioner has surreptitiously occupied the accommodation in dispute he made an application Under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 for the release of the accommodation in his favour on the ground that the same was in dilapidated condition and he wanted to rebuild it. The application was opposed by the Petitioner. The RC and EO, however, after hearing both the parties and relying upon the report of the Rent Control Inspector and a certificate from a retired Civil Engineer, held that the accommodation was indeed in dilapidated condition and required to be rebuilt. Since, however, the Petitioner had not submitted any plan for the rebuilding of the accommodation, he passed the following order: I, therefore, allow the release application on the condition that the Applicant will get his plan sanctioned from the Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur within a period of 90 days from to day falling which the release application will be treated as automatically rejected and the disputed accommodation in that case be treated as vacant for allotment. The Petitioner thereupon moved the State Govt. Under Section 7 -F of the Act. The State Govt. in a reasoned order has upheld the order of the RC and EO and has rejected the revision of the Petitioner on the ground that he had no locus -standi to object to the order of the RC and EO. The Petitioner has challenged in this petition the order of the State Govt. as well as of the RC and EO.
(3.) THE only ground raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the application of the landlord Under Rule 6 was not maintainable. Rule 6 provides: Occupation by landlord - -When the DM is satisfied that an accommodation which has fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant is bonafide needed by the landlord for his own personal occupation the DM may permit the landlord to occupy it himself. The argument is that wider this rule an accommodation may be released in favour of the landlord if the same is required for his personal occupation arid not for purposes of reconstruction or rebuilding. The learned Counsel has invited, my attention to Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, rent and eviction) Act, 1972, which has replaced the old Act of 1947 Clause (b) of Section 21(1) of the new Act makes provision for the eviction of a tenant on the application of the landlord "if the building is, in dilapidated condition and is required for the purpose of demolition and re -construction." It is argued that in the old Act there was a lacuna, which has been made good under the new Act. In my Opinion the contention of the learned Counsel is not correct. There is a distinction between Rule 6 of the old Act and Section 21(1)(b) of the new Act. The former became applicable only when the accommodation was vacant or was about to fall vacant and as such, the rights of any sitting tenant were not involved. The latter provision on the other hand applies when the eviction of a sitting tenant is sought on the ground that the accommodation needs reconstruction. It appears to me that Rule 6 was comprehensive enough not only to cover cases where the landlord requires an accommodation for his personal use but also to cases where he requires it for the purposes of re -construction. However, it is not necessary to pronounce any final opinion on this question because the Petitioner has no locus -standi to challenge the order of the RC and EO or of the State Govt. No order of allotment was issued in favour of the Petitioner nor is he the successor -in -interest of the outgoing tenant. In other words, he is a trespasser and as such, cannot object to the application of the landlord for the release of the accommodation in his, favour. Such a right has been given to a sitting tenant, whose possession is lawful. The Petitioner has no interest whatsoever in the accommodation in dispute and as such, the order of the State Govt., in my opinion, is perfectly valid and justified.;