S.D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) THE property in dispute is the upper portion of the house No. 39 -B, Beli Road New Katra, Allahabad. Smt. Hardevi, Respondent No. 2 is the landlady and the Petitioner is the occupant of the premises in dispute. On 26th February, 1981 the landlady filed an application under Section 16 of the Act before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer alleging that the Petitioner was initially permitted to occupy two rooms on the upper floor in respect of which a release order has been passed and now subsequently, he has forcibly occupied four more rooms on the same floor and consequently, the Petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the accommodation in dispute and as such the accommodation in dispute should be deemed to be vacant in the eye of law and since the applicant is in personal need of the accommodation, the property in dispute be released in her favour. This application was contested by the Petitioner it was alleged by the Petitioner that, in fact, the property in dispute was let out to him in the year 1973 at the monthly rent of Rs. 85/ - per mensum. It was alleged in defence that, in fact, the entire upper portion of the house was let out to the Petitioner and that the case set up by the landlady that the Petitioner has forcibly occupied the four rooms is absolutely a false case. The application came up for hearing before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad who by his judgment dated 4 -11 -1981 held that there was no vacancy and as such the question of release did not arise and rejected the application. In this order it was held by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the landlady had not filed any agreement indicating how much portion was let out by her to the Petitioner. It was also held that there is no satisfactory evidence to prove that the landlady had let out only two rooms. In any case, he further held that even if the occupation of the Petitioner is that of a trespasser ,it creates no vacancy. With these findings the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order dated 4 -11 -1981 the landlady filed a revision before the District Judge, Allahabad under Section 18 of the Act. This revision came up for hearing before the 1st Additional District Judge who by his judgment dated February 6, 1984 allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and further allowed the release application, and directed the Petitioner to vacate the entire upper portion of the house in dispute The District Judge treating the application moved by the landlady to be an application under Section 21 of the Act and after considering the need of the parties allowed the release application. The District Judge agreed with the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the forcible occupation by a tenant of any room not in his tenancy did not create a vacancy in the eye of law. But treating the Petitioner to be in occupation of the entire upper floor considered the application for release.
(3.) THE Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the District Judge allowing the release application has filed the present petition in this Court.;