A.N.Varma - (1.) THIS petition is directed against two orders, one, dated 27-3-82 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotting the accommodation in dispute, namely, house no. 377/2 Civil Lines, Roorkee to the respondent no. 3 and, the other, dated 27-5-1983 passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge Saharanpur, dismissing two revisions filed by the petitioners.
(2.) THESE are the relevant facts. Petitioner no. 2 Smt. Shakuntala Devi is the landlady of the house in dispute (no. 377/2). The house was formerly occupied by one Shiromani Pathak. Upon Shiromani Pathak's vacating that house, the landlady sent an intimation through a letter dated 8-12-1981 to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 15 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the 'Act' for short). In that letter, she also stated that she would like the accommodation to be allotted to Fateh Bahadur petitioner no. 1. No allotment was made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer within 21 days as contemplated under section 17 (1) of the Act. After waiting for 21 days from the date on which the intimation was received by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the landlady sent another intimation to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer which was received by the latter on 4-1-1982 reiterating her desire that the accommodation be allowed to Fateh Bahadur. No allotment order was made within the statutory period of ten days even after the receipt of the second intimation. On 20-1-1982 one Dr. J. K. Ahuja, respondent no. 3 herein made an application for allotment and by an order dated 27-3-82, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the accommodation to Dr. Ahuja. The Rent Control Eviction Officer observed in his order that as Fateh Bahadur was residing with his son in another house, namely, house no. 161/10, Civil Lines, it would not be just and proper to allot the accommodation to him. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer seems to have thought that the dispute before him was one solely between Fateh Bahadur on the one hand and other applicants for allotment on the other. He did not consider it necessary to consider the effect of the nomination made by the landlady. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, both Fateh Bahadur as well as Smt. Shakuntala Devi preferred revision. Both these revisions have been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge by separate but identical orders passed on the same date. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by this order have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the petitioner, it is submitted that the provisions of Section 17 (1) are mandatory and they admit of no such exception as seems to have been assumed by the Rent Control authorities. Learned counsel contended that even the revisional Court ignored the true import of Section 17 (1) which is primarily concerned under certain circumstances with a very important right which the Legislature has conferred on a landlord, namely, that of making a nomination in favour of a person of his choice. It is urged that the grounds upon which the nomination made by the landlady have been ignored by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as by the Additional District Judge were totally irrelevant and extraneous to the scheme of the Act.
(3.) THE contentions seems to be well founded and must be accepted. Section 17 (1) of the Act provides : " 17. Conditions of Making Allotment Order- (1) Where the District Magistrate receives an intimation, under sub-section (1) of Section 15, of the vacancy or expected vacancy of building an allotment order in respect of that building shall be made and communicated to the landlord within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of such intimation, and where no such order is so made or communicated within the said period, the landlord may intimate to the District Magistrate the name of a person of his choice, and thereupon the District Magistrate shall allot the building in favour of the person so nominated unless for special and adequate reason to be recorded he allots it to any other person within ten days from the receipt of intimition of such nomination. " The next relevant provision is Rule 10 (7) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules 1972. The same reads as follows : " (7) The power of the District Magistrate under section 17 (1) to disregard the nomination by the landlord in the event of the District Magistrate's failure to make the allotment order within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of intimation of vacancy or expected vacancy of a building shall be exercised very sparingly and only for a public purpose of an urgent nature the District Magistrate considers it necessary so to do. " (Emphasis added).;