K. C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) PREMISES nos. 21, 22 and 23 situated in mohalla Kan-ungoyan, Meerut belonged to one Kam-eshwar Dayal. He had let out the houses numbered 22 and 23 to Manohar Lal. He had sub-let the house no. 23 to Kripa Ram, the petitioner. On 14-2-1974 Kameshwar Dayal sold the aforesaid premises to Rameshwar Dayal. Before this purchase Manohar Lal had died on 28-1-1974, leaving behind his daughter. As she was a married daughter she had neither any right to the tenancy left by her father Manohar nor did she claim any right.
(2.) UPON the death of Manohar Lal, Rameshwar Dayal filed an application for the release of premises No. 22 and 23 under sec. 16 of the U.P. (Regulation of Buildings Operation) Act (briefly stated as the New Act) on the ground that as the sole tenant was dead, those houses were open to release. During the pendency of this application the petitioner also filed an application for the allotment of these premises in his favour. Kriparam, the petitioner was admittedly in possession of portion no. 23. But the Prescribed Authority without issuing any notice to him released the same in favour of landlord. Consequently the application made by the petitioner for allotment was also rejected. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for review under 16 (5) of the New Act, on the ground that the release order, having been obtained on misrepresentation and without disclosing all the relevant facts, was liable to be recalled. The application was resisted by Kameshwar Dayal. He admitted that the petitioner was a sub-tenant of house no. 23 but claimed that with the death of Manohar Lal the tenant-in-chief, the petitioner's right, if any, were extinguished and therefore possession of the petitioner being otherwise than allotment or release should be deemed to be unauthorised. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer accepted the case of Rameshwar Dayal and rejected the application for review filed by Kripa Ram. Kripa Ram preferred an appeal before the District Judge under section 18 of the New Act. The appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 6-7-1973. Kripa Ram has filed the present writ petition against the aforesaid judgment of the authorities named above in this court. The sole question that arises for decision in this appeal is about the status of Kripa Ram, after the death of Manohar Lal. It would be beneficial to refer to the provisions of the New Act for the purpose of appreciating the point involved for decision. Section 3 (a) of the New Act, as stated above, defines a 'tenant'. A 'tenant' in relation to a building, means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant's death, his heirs; Section 11 is the other relevant provision in this regard. It provides that no person shall let any building except in pursuance of an allotment order issued under section 16 of the Act, Section 12 provides for deemed vacancy of building in certain cases. Section 13 is meant for putting the restriction on occupation of building without allotment or release order. By section 14 legislature has provided for regularisation of occupation of existing sub-tenants. Section 16 provides for allotment and release of vacant building. The grounds on which the allotment and release can be made under this section have been provided in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of section 16. Section 21 deals with the proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant. A survey of the above provisions would indicate that the following are the events when a house can be released in favour of a landlord:- (i) in case of deemed vacancy (section 12), (ii) in case of actual vacancy (section 16), (iii) in case of unauthorised occupation (Secs. 11 and 13) and (iv) in case of a building in occupation of a tenant (under section 21),
(3.) IT is indisputable that in the instant case we are concerned only with whether the occupation of Kripa 'Ram, the petitioner, became unauthorised on death of Manohar Lal ? The submission made on his behalf was that as the right of Kripa Ram to retain the possession of premises no. 23 extinguished with the death of Manohar Lal, there fore, he must be deemed to be an unauthorised occupant of the house after 28th of January, 1974. On this assertion the counsel for the respondent no.3 claimed that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rightly found that the premises no. 23 was vacant and open to release. In order to consider the argument of the counsel for the respondent it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, having bearing on this controversy.;