R.B.LAL,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur dated May 20, 1981 and the order of the Revisional Authority (District Judge, Kanpur) dated June 30, 1981.
(2.) THE facts leading to this writ petition are these : A Hindu undivided family, of which the petitioner is the Karta, is the owner and landlord of house No. 106/61, Gandhi Chowk, Kanpur. A part of this house was in occupation of Shri R.S. Tripathi, Munsif, Kanpur, as a tenant. Shri Tripathi was transferred to Barabanki and joined there some time in January 1977. The petitioner filed an application for release of this accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (briefly the Act) on the ground of bonafide requirement for occupation by the members of his family. This application was moved on February 7, 1977. Some persons including Smt. Bina Bhargava present respondent No. 3, made application for allotment of the said accommodation. The application for release as well as the application for allotment came up before the Rent Control Tribunal, Kanpur for disposal. By order dated April 27, 1977 the Tribunal rejected the release application of the landlord on the ground that the tenant Sri Tripathi had vacated the accommodation and, therefore, the release application had become infructuous; and directed the file to be put up on June 11, 1977 for further orders. The Tribunal allotted the accommodation to Sri T.N. Srivastava, Senior Inspector (Rent Control) by order dated May 9, 1977. The landlord filed appeal before the District Judge against the order of rejection of his release application. He also filed a revision in the Court of the District Judge against the order of allotment dated May 9, 1977. Smt. Bina Bhargava also filed a revision in the Court of District Judge against that allotment order. On March 16, 1978, the landlord and Sri R.S. Tripathi filed a compromise in the appeal saying that the accommodation in question be released in favour of the landlord and possession of the accommodation in question be delivered to him (landlord). The compromise was verified on May 3, 1978. The learned Additional District Judge before whom the appeal and the two revisions were pending, allowed the appeal and the two revisions by order dated May 20, 1978 and remanded the case for a fresh decision according to law. By the time this order was passed, the Rent Control Tribunal had been abolished and the power to decide release application under Section 21 of the Act was given to Prescribed Authority (Second Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur) for disposal. The allotment applications went before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for disposal. On July 26, 1978 the landlord moved an application for release of the accommodation in his personal need. This application also came up for decision before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application under Section 21(1)(a) by order dated September 1, 1979 in view of the compromise which had been verified before the learned Additional District Judge. In pursuance of this order the petitioner obtained possession over the accommodation through police on October 29, 1979. The landlord filed a copy of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated September 1, 1979 before the Rent Control Eviction Officer and he also informed the said officer that he had also obtained actual possession over the accommodation in pursuance of that order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, however, proceeded to consider the release application under Section 16(1)(b) and the allotment applications. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, held that the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act were of no consequence because they were taken after the tenant Sri Tripahti had vacated the accommodation. He, therefore, declined to act on the order dated September 1, 1979. On the question of the need, the held that the landlord had no bonafide need to have the accommodation in question. In the result the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dismissed the release application of the landlord under Section 16(1)(b). Since T.N. Srivastava had been transferred and Smt. Bina Bhargava was an applicant for allotment, the accommodation was allotted in her favour. Aggrieved, the landlord filed revision in Court of District Judge, Kanpur. The learned District Judge held that on February 7, 1977 when the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was moved the building was about to fall vacant and, therefore, the said release application could not be made. An application for release under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act alone could be made. He further held that the compromise relied upon by the landlord was not a lawful compromise. In the compromise it was not said that the need of the landlord was bonafide. While passing the order dated September 1, 1979 the Prescribed Authority had also not said that it was satisfied that the landlord bonafide required the accommodation for his personal use. The order dated September 1, 1979 was ineffective and could not help the landlord. He also observed that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had found that the need of the landlord was not bonafide. In the result the learned District Judge dismissed the revision.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved the landlord challenged the order of the Revisional Authority and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.;