N.L. Ganguly, J - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the revisional order dated 27 -1 -1993 passed by the Addl. District Judge VII, Aligarh allowing the revision of the contesting opposite parties. An application for allotment of the show room in question was filed by the opposite party No. 3 Rama Shankar before the prescribed Authority. Rama Shanker opposite party No. 3 had pleaded that a show room situate at Arya Samaj, Sasnigate, Nagla Road was illegally let out by the Manager/Secretary of the Arya Samaj who are the owners and landlords of the showroom in question. Since the accommodation was let out illegally without allotment order, the Secretary Arya Samaj, Sasnigate, Hathras namely Om Prakash Vadya was liable to be prosecuted and the shop room in question be allotted in favour of Rama Shanker, opposite party No. 3. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer called for a report from the Regional Supply Officer. Notice was also given to the occupant of the shop room for giving his reply to the application of Rama Shanker, opposite party No. 3.
(2.) THE prescribed Authority was of the view that the shop room in question which was previously a garrage since the roof of the said garrage used as a shop, has become dilapidated, the earlier tenant had vacated the said accommodation. It was further stated that the said tenant had also died. After getting the possession of the shop, the Secretary of the Arya -Samaj landlord got the roof reconstructed and let out the shop in question to another person. The Secretary of the Arya Samaj again got it vacated on 1 -6 -1989 and again on 1 -6 -1989 let it out to Sri Kailash Chand and Sri Om Prakash, petitioners. The prescribed authority rejected the application of opposite party No. 3 on two grounds: that the shop in question since vests in a public institution which is a registered Society, provisions of Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable to it and secondly, the shop room in question was a new construction, on that ground also the Rent Control Act 18 of 1972 was not applicable to it. Before the Court below, it was submitted that mere reconstruction of the roof and little modification in the constructions, it would not amount to a new construction. It would continue to be an old construction governed under the Act 18 of 1972 unless it was shown and proved that the existing old construction had been completely demolished and new constructions were raised at the site of the premises in question. The lower revisional court relied on Jai Narain Tandon v. Ram Kishan Doss, 1965 ALJ 794. The factual position was admitted that only roof (chhat) was reconstructed and shutter was fixed on the roof, stones slab were placed in the roof. In other words, neither there was any alteration in the area of the shop in question nor there was any modification in the shop. Thus, the revisional court was perfectly justified and legally correct to hold that the construction which is the subject matter of the present dispute was not a new construction but an old construction governed by the provisions of the Act. So far the question that the property in question vests in the Arya Samaj which is a public Society, whether Act No. 13 of 1972 would be applicable. The revisional court found that there was nothing on record to show that the premises in question is not within the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Act No. 13 of 1972. After recording these findings, the revision filed before the Addl. District Judge was allowed and the order dated 5 -2 -1990 was reversed.
(3.) This court was pleased to call for the counter affidavit from the contesting opposite parties. The parties have exchanged their counter and rejoinder affidavits. Since the parties have consented that the petition itself may be finally decided, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri L.K. Dwivedi and Sri V.K. Gupta, I am of the opinion that this Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The court below was perfectly justified in holding that the alteration made in the garrage and laying of new roof and affixing shutter would not amount to new construction and the shop in question shall continue to be governed under the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972. The revisional court has remanded the matter to the R.C.E.O. There is no error or question of jurisdiction in the impugned order. The parties shall get their grievance adjudicated as directed by the revisional court. The writ petition calls for no interference and is dismissed. The interim order dated 25 -2 -1993 extended again till further orders, shall stand vacated.;