Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The Petitioner is a tenant of 76 -A, Boundary Road, Meerut Cantt. since about 1947. Respondent No. 2, Suit Kaushalya Devi, purchased this house in August, 1965. She wanting this house for her personal residence made an application for permission to sue for the eviction of the Petitioner Under Sec. 14 of the UP Cantonment (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1952. That application was after contest rejected on 26 -11 -1965 on the ground that the need of the landlord was not genuine. It appears that thereafter the landlord made an application Under Rule 9 of the UP Cantonment (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1954. Thereupon the Commandant passed an order on 4 -6 -1966 directing the Petitioner to vacate the accommodation Under Rule 9 because the landlord who had purchased the accommodation in August, 1965 requires it for her personal use. The Petitioner filed objections before the Administrative Commandant, a copy whereof is annexure 3 to the writ petition. These objections were rejected on 25 -6 -1966. The order deals with one of the objections only and holds that the conditions of Sec. 14 of the Act are different to Rule 9 and are not applicable to an application Under Rule 9. It required the Petitioner to take action for vacating the accommodation under the earlier order. The Petitioner prays that these orders be quashed.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Rule 9 was not at all applicable to the case of the Petitioner and that in any event Rule 9 was ultra vires the rule making powers conferred on the Central Government by Sec. 23 of the Act.
(3.) The first question is as to the interpretation of Rule 9 which reads as follows: 9. Certain accommodation to be allotted by the Officer commanding the station after consultation with landlord: (1) Where a landlord desires to let out a portion of accommodation, any portion of which was not let out previously, the officer commanding the station shall make the allotment, - - (a) if the landlord himself is living in any portion of the accommodation, in accordance with the wishes of the landlord, and (b) if the landlord does not live in any portion of the accommodation, in accordance so far as may be, with his wishes: Provided always that the officer commanding the station shall, at any after such allotment, on being satisfied, on application by the landlord, that the landlord requires the accommodation bonafide for his own personal occupation, direct the allottee to vacate the accommodation within such reasonable time as may be fixed in this behalf by the officer commanding the station. (2) If the accommodation referred to in Sub -rule (1) falls vacant at any time subsequently as a result of the tenant vacating it, the officer commanding the station shall, on application by the landlord, allow him to occupy the same for his own residence. For the application of the proviso to Sub -rule (1) three conditions have to coexist, (1) that the landlord desires to let out a portion of the accommodation, (2) that any portion of such accommodation had not been let out previously and (3) that the officer commanding is satisfied that the landlord requires the accommodation bonafide for his own personal occupation. Then he can direct the allottee to vacate the accommodation within a reasonable time. In the instant case the Petitioner's allegation that he was the tenant of 76 A Boundary Road has not been controverted. There is no suggestion that he was a tenant of only a portion of this house. Further even in the counter -affidavit it is admitted that the Petitioner was a tenant from the year 1948. There is no averment in the affidavits or in the impugned order that any portion of the accommodation under the tenancy of the Petitioner was not let out prior to the creation of the tenancy in favour of the Petitioner. Thus the first and the second conditions are non -existent.;