- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31-7-93 passed by respondent No. 1, the Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer confirming the vacancy report given in respect of House No. 120 (new number 123) Dharampura, G. T. Road Ghaziabad. The petitioner claims himself to be the sitting tenant.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the Vinay Kumar Jain filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allot ment of the premises in question whereupon proceedings were initiated and a report from the Rent Control Inspector was called for. THE said Inspector submitted a report after making inspection of the premises in question in accordance with rules and also made inquiry from the petitioner also. In his statement before the Rent Control Inspector the petitioner stated that he has been in occupation as tenant since the year 1976. He further stated that one Ripu Daman Singh Bedi was the previous owner-landlord and thereafter Satya Bhushan and Gopal Das Estate be came owners and in the present time Smt. Suman Lata-respondent No. 2 is the landlady. He further told the Inspector that he has been depositing the rent in Court since 1986 and rent from 20-12-91 to 20-4-92 was sent through Money Order to respondent No. 2 and it was not accepted by her. He further told that there is an electricity connection in the house in his name and photostat copies of some docu ments were also given to him. Those copies related to rent receipts ranging from 1986 to 1988, copy of receipt showing the deposit of Rs. 435/- on 12-4-91 in the U. P. Electricity Board, copy of the Service Connection No. 103/134/37 dated 28-4-91; whereas according to the landlady the petitioner came in occupation in the year 1981-82 when he was permitted as licensee to use the house for sometime while he was in service of Gopal Das Estate. THE Rent Control Inspector was of the opinion that from the documents produced by the petitioner before him, it was not proved that he has been tenant in the disputed house since before 5-7-76 and therefore, the house in question could be treated to be vacant. However, he further reported that before vacancy was notified, the concerned parties might be heard. THEreafter notice was given to the petitioner as well as to the landlady and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer after giving them reasonable opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that the Kent Con trol and Eviction Officer has recorded a finding that the petitioner had been in ducted in the house in question in the year 1982 for three months as licensee; whereas the rent receipts produced before the authority concerned showed that he had paid rent in respect of the house in question in the year 1980 as well. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that while examining the question whether any deemed vacancy occurred under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the relevant consideration is whether or not the person who claims himself to be tenant, was in occupation of the tenanted accommoda tion prior to 5-7-76 i. e. the date of enforce ment of the Amending Act and if it is found that the persons concerned was not in oc cupation prior to that date, then his occupa tion in the absence of any valid order of allotment would be unauthorised and in that event there would be a vacancy under law. Section 11 of the Act puts prohibi tion on letting without allotment order which lays down "saved as hereinafter provided no person shall let out any build ing except in pursuance of the allotment order issued under Section 16 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act puts a restriction on occupation of building without allot ment order. It reads as under:- "where a landlord or tenant ceases to oc cupy a building or part thereof, no person shall occupy in any capacity on his behalf, or otherwise than under an order of allotment or release under Secion 16, and if a person so purports to occupy it, he shall, without prejudice to the provisions of Section 31 be deemed to be an unauthorized occupant of such building or part. "
(3.) THE object of Section 11 is to regulate the letting of building to which Act applies by means of an order of allotment, issued under Section 16 (1 ). THE ban on letting of building without order of allotment will put all vacant buildings at the disposal of the Distric Magistrate. Unlike the Old Act No. 3 of 1947 in the present Act the Legislature has included specific provision has been imposed on letting of accommodations, otherwise than by way of allotment Section 13 puts restrictions on all the persons to occup;y the vacant accommodation on behalf of landlord and tenant otherwise than under an order of allotment or release under Section 16, and if such a person so purports to occupy the building, which is governed by the Act, he shall be deemed to be an unauthorized occupant and the building shall be open for allotment or release as the case may be. Under the provisions of the new Act any contract of tenancy between the landlord and tenant after coming into force of the Act is hit by Section 23 in the absence of an order of allotment. Under the present Act letting of a building without an order of allotment as well as occupation of the building by the tenant in the absence of the same, would be void and illegal. However, Section 14 of the Act makes a provision under which occupation of an existing tenant is regulrised by legal fiction which says that "northwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licence (within the meaning of Section 2-A) or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (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 authorized licensee or tenant of such building. ";