N L. Ganguly, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and Order dated 20-10-1992, passed by the then Add! District Magistrate (supply), Meerut, exercising powers of the delegated authority under Act No. 13 of 1972 and the revisional order dated 27th August, 1993, pissed by V Addl. District Judge, Meerut.
(2.) THE accommodation in question is a shop-room No 145, Mohalla Purwa Abdul Wali, Meerut. THE shop room in question is said to be occupied by one Mohd. Ilyas with effect from 30-7-1982 without an allotment order. THE occupation of the shop-room was said to be unauthorised occupation and the petitioner was liable to ejectment. THE opposite-party- plaintiff stated to have purchased the property in question and he wanted to start business on the ground floor and the. construction on the 1st floor for his. residence. THE property was purchased for a consideration of .Rs. 1,55,000/-. THE landlord stated that his family consisted of 9 members including his wife, mother, two sons and four daughters. Besides this eight sisters of the landlord, who are married and they often come along with their husbands and stay with the landlord and his mother. THE landlord opposite- party pleaded that *the shop and residential part of house in question is needed for his personal use and occupation and his need is genuine and bonafide. The Delegated Authority under the Act called for a report of the Inspector, Rent Control, about the factual position about the occupation of the petitioner. On the report of the Inspector, Rent Control and other material evidence, the District Magistrate exercising the powers as the Prescribed Authority under the Act declared vacancy of the accommodation in question on the ground that the petitioner was occupying the premises in question without any valid allotment order. The parties filed evidence in the case. The petitioner submitted that he is carrying on business in the accommodation since 1-8-1982 after Obtaining a lease deed in his favour after paying Rs. 23,000/-. The peritonei stated to be carrying on business in the shop previously -run by erstwhile owner of the shop Mohd. Ilyas.
(3.) THE authorities below recorded finding that the petitioner was occupying the premises since 1-8-1982, i.e. much after 5-7-1976 without any allotment order in his favour or any consent of the landlord prior to 5-7-1976. Thus, the position of the petitioner was held to be ho better than an unauthorised occupant of the accommodation in question. The landlord raised the preliminary objection before the revisional court that the revision at the instance of the unauthorised occupant of the shop in question, whose position is no better than that of our prospective allottee could not legally challenge the order of release passed in favour of the landlord. The court below quoted the relevant passage of the judgment of our Court Jagjit Singh v. District Judge Dehradun, 1990 (1) ARC 517, and quoted as under : "The scheme of the Act is simply clear that no occupation of a building is permitted except in pursuance of an allotment order. Admittedly in the present case, there is no allotment order in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that he came in occupation of the disputed accommodation with the consent of the landlord who had been accepting rent from him. This contract of tenancy may be binding between the landlord and the petitioner, but it is not binding on the authorities under the Act and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is fully competent to adjudicate and declare vacancy if he finds that a person is in occupation of a building without a valid allotment order in his favour. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer having found that there is no allotment order in favour of the petitioner, rightly held that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant and declared the vacancy. In case a tenant is allowed to occupy a building merely with the consent of the landlord, these provisions of Sections 11, 13 15 and 31 of the Act will be defeated which Clearly prohibit the occupation of the building except in pursuance of an allotment order. Consequently the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was fully competent to examine the status of the petitioner in occupation of the building and having found that the petitioner was in occupation of the disputed premises without any allotment order in his favour rightly held that the petitioner's status was nothing more than an unauthorised occupant and declared the vacancy." ;