SHEO NATH DASS Vs. BABU LAL, AMANATULLAH AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1965-2-31
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 12,1965

Sheo Nath Dass Appellant
VERSUS
Babu Lal, Amanatullah And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LACHHMI NARAIN V. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER,LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
RAM LAI V. SHEO MANI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
R.K. KHANDELWAL V. M.L. GHAWLA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.P. Uniyal, J. - (1.)ONE Babu Lal, Respondent No. 1, was tenant of a shop in premises No. C.K. 59/6, Bulla Nala, Varanasi City, since 1923. The landlord instituted suit No. 629 of 1953 for his ejectment and recovery of arrers of rent. During the pendency of the suit the Appellant and several others applied to the District Magistrate for allotment of the shop. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, RCEO for short, issued a notice to the landlord and the tenant (Respondent) to intimate whether the shop was going to fall vacant in the near future. On 5.1.1957 the landlord wrote to say that the shop was about to be vacated by the tenant and it may be released in his favour. The Respondent also intimated on 22.1.1957 that he was going to leave the shop in a month's time. Two days later he made a statement on the same lines to the RCEO. tiring satisfied that the shop was about to fall vacant the RCEO allotted it to the Appellant by an order dated 20.2. 1957. But despite the said order the Respondent did not vacate the shop.
(2.)MEANWHILE a consent decree was passed on 22.2.1957 in the suit filed by the landlord, and on the same day a compromise was arrived at between the landlord and the Respondent whereunder it was agreed that the latter would remain in occupation of the shop so long as he paid enhanced rent, and on his committing default in respect of two consecutive instalments he would render himself liable to be evicted. Subsequently there was default on the part of the Respondent and the landlord executed the decree on 18.5.1957 and got a warrant issued for delivery of possession. On 21.5.1957 a formal dakhaldehani was drawn up. However, the allottee was unable to obtain actual physical possession of the shop.
But before the decree came to be executed by the landlord the allottee had applied for and got a notice issued Under Section 7A(l) of the Rent Control and Eviction Act to the Respondent, calling upon him to vacate the shop by 21.3.1957. Then followed proceedings under Section 7A(2) and (3) [culminating in the eviction of the Respondent on 2.12.1957.

(3.)ON being evicted from the shop in pursuance of the order under Section 7 A (3), the Respondent filed a writ petition in this Court for quashing the allotment order. The writ petition was dismissed on 20.12.1957 and the Special
Appeal against, it met a similar fate. He then commenced the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, for a declaration that the orders of the RCEO dated 21.3.1957 and 2.12.1957 Under Section 7 A. (1), (2) and (3) resulting in his eviction were ultra vires, void and ineffectual.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.