- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 30-10-1974 passed by X the Additional District Judge, Allahabad.
(2.) THE opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5 are the owners and landlords of house No. 134 situate in Alopibagh in the city of Allahabad. One Sri Durga Prasad Tiwari was a tenant of this house. According to the landlords Sri Brij Mohan Chaturvedi, the petitioner, began to live with Sri Tiwari and when they enquired about it Sri Tiwari gave out that Sri Chaturvedi being his relation, was staying with as a guest and would vacate the house when suitable accommodation was available to him. This position went on for some time and the landlords received rent from Sri Tiwari up to 30-6-1972 and they issued receipts for the same. THEreafter Sri Tiwari vacated the house without information to the landlords and inducted Sri Chaturvedi as a sub-tenant illegally but in the eye of law the house will be deemed to have fallen vacant in the month of July 1972. THE landlords at first gave a notice to Sri Chaturvedi to vacate the house and on his failure to do so moved an application on 24-4-1973 under S. 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of this house on the ground that they bona fide require it for their own use. According to them, their family consists of 19 members and the house in their possession is not sufficient to accommodate them. THErefore, they have decided to shift one of the owners, namely, Sri H. S. Bose and members of his family to the disputed house. Sri Chaturvedi, the petitioner, contested that application, inter alia, on the grounds, that there is no vacancy inasmuch as Sri Tiwari had vacated this house in the year 1963 and since then he is living in it as a tenant with the consent of the landlords on a monthly rent of Rs. 30 which was later on raised to Rs. 35. The rent was regularly paid till June 1972 but the landlords did not issue any receipt. He also deposited the house and water tax in respect of this house. After the new Act came into force his possession became that of an authorised tenant by virtue of S. 14 and he insisted on having receipts in respect of the payment of rent. When the landlords showed unwillingness he remitted the rent by money order on 1-12-1972 but it was refused. In these circumstances the house never fell vacant and the application under S. 16 of the Act was not maintainable. Neither party filed any affidavit but the petitioner filed a number of documents to substantiate his contention of possession since 1963.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority found favour with the contentions of Sri Chaturvedi and rejected the release application on the ground that there was no vacancy. The landlords filed an appeal under S. 18 of the Act and the learned Additional District Judge, Allahabad, came to the conclusion that Sri Chaturvedi is an unauthorised occupant inasmuch as the landlords never consented to take him as a tenant nor accepted rent from him. He was of this view on the ground that the landlords never gave any written consent nor issued any receipt to Sri Chaturvedi and the latter being a lawyer practising in the High Court, would not have paid rent without taking receipt. According to him, the petitioner' s possession in this house will not necessarily amount to consent on the part of the landlords. He accordingly passed the following impugned order: " The appeal is allowed with costs. The order dated 15-10-1973 rejecting the release application is set aside. It is hereby declared that the house in question is deemed to be vacant and is available for release or allotment under S. 16 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall now decide the release application on merits." Sri Chaturvedi has now filed this writ petition for quashing the aforesaid order mainly on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge committed manifest error of law by completely ignoring the material on the record and giving perverse finding that vacancy has taken place.;