R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) A very short question arises for consideration in this landlord's writ petition as to whether the mandatory requirement of Section 17 of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 of making an allotment order in favour of landlords' nominee where no allotment has been made within 21 days from the date of receipt of intimation that the premises are vacant, can be ignored by declaring deemed vacancy under section 12 (3) of the Act.
(2.) WHAT happened was that the earlier tenant constructed a house and was expected to vacate the premises on or about 24th June, 1980 due intimation of which was given by petitioner to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by an application dated 18th June, 1980. On inspection the Inspector submitted a report on 2nd July, 1980 that the tenant was still in occupation but was likely to shift to his recently constructed premises in the near future. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer thereafter declared the premises vacant under section 12 (3) of the Act on 22nd July, 1980, and invited applications for allotment. On the same day the landlord moved an application nominating opposite party no. 4 as a tenant of his choice. It has been held by both the authorities that section 17 came into operation only when the vacancy was intimated under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 17 applies both where a tenant has ceased to occupy or expected to vacate. The expression expected to vacate demonstrates that this section is applicable even in a case where vacancy has not occurred. Not only this section 15 (1) requires every landlord to intimate the District Magistrate if an accommodation has fallen vacant either because the tenant has ceased to occupy it or it has become vacant in 'any other manner whatsoever'. The expression 'in any other manner whatsoever' is wide enough to include occurring of vacancy under section 12 (3) as well. Similar language was used in Section 7 of the U. P. Act III of 1947. It came up for interpretation before a Full Bench of this Court in Mohd. lshaq v. State, 1966 AWR 520. It was held by using the words 'in any other manner whatsoever' the Legislature has made it clear that the provisions applied in all possible cases of vacancy. In U. P. Act XIII of 1972 same language has been used. The Legislature, therefore, accepted interpretation of expression by the Full Bench of this Court. There is, therefore, no reason to confine section 17 (1) only to these cases where tenant has ceased to occupy and the vacancy has been intimated by the landlord. The vacancy may arise by ceasing to occupy the premises or it may arise u/Sec. 12 by removal of substantial effects or by construction of the house by the tenant. In law in either case the vacancy arises. The authorities below, therefore, were not justified in ignoring section 17 (1) of the Act. In the result this petition succeeds, and is allowed .The orders passed by both the authorities are quashed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall pass fresh order of allotment in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.;