Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) RENT Control Act particularly its provisions of allotment and release cannot be interpreted in such manner that landlord becomes 'necessary evil'. The tone and tenor of allotment order dated 4.10.1986 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer (I), Allahabad in Case No. 205 of 1984 allotting House No. 18 -A Lowther Road to Smt. Mohini Devi, the petitioner suggests otherwise. The details of the accommodation in the house in dispute are given in report of Rent Control Inspector dated 24.6.1985, copy of which is Annexure -12 to the writ petition which shows that it is a mansion if not palace. In the said report 22 items of accommodations are mentioned having a lawn of 25 feet x 50 feet, Aangan of 25 feet x 25 feet, another Aangan of 10 feet x 15 feet, one latrine and one bathroom in lawn and one latrine and one bathroom in the Aangan, 4 veranda out of which one is covered, ten rooms on ground floor and two on the first floor most of the rooms are of 10 feet x 10 feet some are 8 feet x 10 feet, some 10 feet x 12 feet and one 15 feet x 25 feet and one 8 feet x 15 feet, one store, one kitchen. This accommodation was allotted to the petitioner by R.C. & E.O. on measly rent of Rs. 100/ - per month on the ground that petitioner's husband was in police department and had retired. Pitiable condition and weak financial resources of the retirees (husband of the petitioner in the instant case) were the main factors, which prevailed upon R.C. & E.O. to allot the accommodation to the petitioner. R.C. & E.O. held that financially petitioner's husband was not in a position to take a new house on rent from the open market. One wonders what such a person will do of such a huge accommodation, R.C. & E.O. at one place in his judgment mentioned: - - Even assuming for a moment, though not admitted that vacancy came to the knowledge of so called landlord on 25.5.1985, the landlord has not intimated Vacancy to the D.M. within seven days as provided under section 15 of the said because the said intimation of vacancy on 25.5.1985 was presented before the R.C. & E.O. on 19.7.1985. The word admitted is used in the context of alternative argument by the Counsel for party and not by the Court. While giving alternative reason for the judgment the Court uses only the word "assume". It is anybody's guess as to how R.C. & E.O. was tempted to use the word admitted in the judgment which is more suitable in the arguments of a counsel. Similarly, there was no dispute that State Bank of India, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as S.B.I. in short) was landlord. Even during arguments in the writ petition none of the parties disputed the said fact. One fails to understand as to why the word landlord was qualified by the words 'so called' by R.C. & E.O.
(2.) IT is not clear as to how S.B.I. acquired the house in dispute and became its landlord. During arguments one of the learned Counsel stated that the previous owner had created some trust and appointed S.B.I. as trustee. The said trust deed is not available on record. Inspite of service no one appeared on behalf of S.B.I. in the writ petition. Even before R.C. & E.O. it did not participate in the proceedings apart from giving intimation of vacancy and requesting for allotment of the house in dispute in favour of respondent No. 2 Sangam Educational Society. The intimation given bears the date 25.5.1985 and the endorsement of R.C. & E.O. dated 19.7.1985 to the effect that the same must be kept on record. Actual vacancy according to R.C. & E.O. occurred on 6.4.1984. Respondent No. 2 against the allotment order in favour of the petitioner filed a revision being Rent Revision No. 359 of 1986. S.B.I. the landlord also filed Rent Revision No. 397 of 1986. Both the revisions were heard together and decided through judgment dated 21.10.1989 by IXth Addl. District Judge, Allahabad. The Addl. District Judge allowed both the revisions, set aside the order of allotment dated 4.10.1986 and remanded the matter to R.C. & E.O. for deciding the allotment applications of both i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 in the light of observations made in the body of the judgment. The Addl. District Judge held that nomination by the landlord in favour of respondent No. 2 was within time. After this finding there was nothing left for R.C. & E.O. to decide. By virtue of the said finding R.C. & E.O. would have been duty bound to allot the entire building to respondent No. 2 under section 17 of the Act. The R.C. & E.O. has held that landlord and the respondent No. 2 and its office bearers and members formed a collusive group. Even if the case does not fall under section 17 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 still there is no harm if landlord indicates his choice or preference for a particular tenant. R.C. & E.O. may ignore that but the action of the landlord cannot be said to be collusion in between him and the tenant. If all other things are equal between several applicants for allotment then there is nothing wrong in giving preference to the nominee of the landlord even if nomination is not binding.
(3.) THERE is one more aspect of the matter. The provision of allotment has been made to satisfy the need of a person who may not be in position to get a house on rent. The need of an applicant for allotment cannot be enlarged into luxury. While making allotment it will have to be seen as to how much accommodation will be sufficient to satisfy the need of the allottee. The respondent No. 2 had stated in the allotment application that it intended to start school from the accommodation in dispute.;