D.N. Jha, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have directed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17 -5 -1978 and the order dated 5 -12 -1979 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the IInd Addl. Distt. Judge, Faizabad, respectively. In brief, the facts are that one Smt. Meera Paul was the tenant of the house in question, of which opposite party No. 3 admittedly is the landlady. While Smt. Meera Paul was staying in the premises Smt. Sunita Paul along with her husband Krishna Das Paul, sometime in 1963, came to Faizabad from Burma and started living in the said house along with Smt. Meera Paul. The husband of the landlady died while she was staying at Kanpur and thereafter in 1971 she shifted to Faizabad. She had earlier filed a suit on the ground that Smt. Meera Paul had become defaulter and was in arrears of rent. It was also pleaded that Smt. Meera Paul had sublet the premises in question to Smt. Sunita Paul and Krishna Das Paul. This suit was hotly contested between the parties and ultimately it was dismissed. It was observed in the aforesaid suit that opposite party No. 3 may initiate proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972). On 6 -4 -1977 the landlady Smt. Asghari Begum applied for release of the accommodation on account of vacancy having occurred in pursuance of Section 12(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter called, the Act). Inquiries were made. The Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence led by the parties held that it was a case of deemed vacancy and the premises thereafter were released in favour of opposite party No. 3. The present petitioners filed a revision feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17 -5 -1978 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlady. The revision was also dismissed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Faizabad, vide order dated 5 -12 -1979. This is how the petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the averments and cross -averments in the respective affidavits of the contesting parties. In my opinion both the Prescribed Authority and the revisional court fell into error by approaching the entire dispute from altogether an erroneous angle. The courts below concentrated on the definition of family laid down in Section 3(g) of the Act. The word "family" has been defined as under: 3 (g) "family" in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building means his or her - - (i) spouse, (ii) male lineal descendants, (iii) such parents, grand -parent and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant as may have been normally residing with him or her, and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building. Obviously, the admitted relationship is that Smt. Sunita Paul is the sister of Smt. Meera Paul who was admittedly tenant of the premises. Krishna Das Paul is the husband of Smt. Sunita Paul. The tenancy rights of Smt. Meera Paul, therefore, could not be inherited by Smt. Sunita Paul or Krishna Das Paul. At one stage the learned counsel for the petitioners tried to impress upon the court that the premises were occupied by the father of Smt. Meera Paul and, therefore, Smt. Meera Paul and Smt. Sunita Paul both inherited the tenancy. There is not an iota of evidence on record to show that at any point of time father of Smt. Meera Paul was the lawful tenant of the premises in question. It may be that father might have been residing with Smt. Meera Paul but the fact remains that the premises in question were allotted in the name of Smt. Meera Paul and she continued to pay rent of the same. I therefore, do not find myself in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Smt. Sunita Paul or Krishna Das Paul had legally inherited the tenancy rights
(3.) THE learned counsel, however, vehemently urged before this Court that admittedly Smt. Sunita Paul and Krishna Das Paul came to reside in the premises along with Smt. Meera Paul when she was the tenant in the year 1963. This fact has not been disputed and has been admitted by both the courts below. The legal position, therefore, that remains to be examined, as urged by the learned counsels for the petitioners, is that Smt. Sunita Paul and Krishna Das Paul having continued in possession of the premises it would not be a case falling under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. The relevant provision is as under: - - 12(1) - -A landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if - - (a) he has substantially removed his effects therefrom, or (b) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family, or (c) in the case of a residential building, he as well as members of his family have taken up residence, not being temporary residence, elsewhere. On scrutiny of the above provision in my opinion the case of the landlord does not fall within any of these categories hence it would not be a case of deemed vacancy. On the other hand, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners would be deemed to be covered by Section 14 of the Act which provides for regularisation of occupation of an existing tenant. Section 14 reads as under: - - 14. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licencee (within the meaning of Section 2A) or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 not being a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before any court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such building.;