- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Respondents 2 and 3, Anil Agrawal and Shrimati Poonam Agrawal, are the landlords, respondent No. 5 filed an allotment application under Section 16 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before rent control and Eviction Officer alleging therein that Baldev Mitra, respondent No. 4, who was the tenant had constructed his own house and had shifted his residence there, hence the house in dispute was vacant. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/district Supply Officer, Meerut, before whom the case was registered as case No. 41 of 2001 Sanjay Gupta v. Anil Agarwal, through order dated 29-9-2005 declared the house in dispute to be vacant under Section 12 (3) of the Act. Tenant Vijay Kumar, who is son of Baldev Mitra, has filed the instant writ petition, challenging the order of declaration of vacancy.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the house in dispute was given on rent to his father Baldev Mitra, petitioner was also major and hence he also became tenant. Firstly, this proposition cannot be accepted. If the tenant at the time of taking the house on rent had got some major sons they do not become ipso facto tenant and secondly, even if it is assumed that the tenancy was joint and petitioner and his father were joint tenants, still no difference will be made as even in the case of joint tenants, acquisition of another house by one of the joint tenant causes vacancy of the entire house. Contrary view was taken by the Supreme Court in the Authority reported in Mohd Azim v. District Judge, (AIR 1985 SC 1118 ). However, the said authority was over-ruled by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Harish Tandon v. A. D. M. , (1996 (2) JCLR 252 (SC) : AIR 1995 SC 676 ). Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited Kamla Dube v. District Judge, (1983 ARC 404), to counted that if a person in occupation has acquired the status of tenant under Section 14 of the Act then vacancy cannot be declared and, such person shall at least be heard. In the instant case there is no question of acquisition of status of tenant under Section 14 of the Act. None of the ingredients of the said Section are either pleaded or proved. The other authority cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner is Rasool Bux v. Prescribed Authority, (1979 ARC 186 (DB) ). In the said authority it was held that declaration of vacancy without notice given to the sitting tenant is bad. The said authority is also not applicable, because notice was given to respondent No. 4, i. e. the father of the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 Baldev Mitra, father of the petitioner appeared and supported the case of landlord and applicant for allotment. Notice to one joint tenant or appearance of one joint tenant is quite sufficient. This observation has been made by me on the presumption that petitioner was joint tenant with his father. However, I am not recording any finding that the petitioner was joint tenant with his father.
(3.) IN view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence it is dismissed. However, looking to the fact that the father of the petitioner himself supported the landlord and the applicant for allotment, clearly, supports the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this all happened due to the bad relations in between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law i. e. petitioner's mother and wife. Accordingly I am of the opinion that reasonable time must be granted to the petitioner to vacate.;