J.K. Tandon, J. - (1.) Smt. Shyama Devi, the Petitioner, is owner of an Ahata bearing municipal No. 2785 situate at Belanganj Agra. It consists of a number of tenements existing on three sides with a big open courtyard in the centre. The Petitioner is herself occupying one of the tenements while the rest, which are between 15 to 20 in number are in the occupation of different tenants. In one of these one Lachmi Narain used to live but he vacated it some time in January last year. He informed the Rent Controller about the intended vacation on 15-1-1957. On 22-1-1957 the Rent Controller allotted this accommodation to Om Prakash, Respondent No. 3. This Om Prakash is the son of Bishambhar Nath Agarwal, who already occupies one of the tenements next door to the Petitioner in the Ahata. Bhagwan, who was another resident in another portion of the Ahata, also wanted this accommodation. He applied to the Rent Controller on 1-2-1956, i.e., several weeks before the accommodation actually fell vacant, which was on 27-1-1957. On this application by Bhagwan the Petitioner had endorsed her consent. The Rent Controller, however, allotted the accommodation on 22-1-1957 in favour of Om Prakash. In due course Om Prakash applied for notice to be sent to the Petitioner Under Section 7-A, which was resisted by the Petitioner. The main ground urged was that the allotment order had been obtained at her back and that in any case it was necessary u/r. 7 of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Rules 1949 to consult the Petitioner before making the allotment order and as far as possible to make the allotment in favour of her nominee.
(2.) It appeared from the order of the Rent Controller that on the Petitioner's objection to the notice Under Section 7-A(l) he himself went and inspected the locality. He found that there were a number of quarters in this Ahata. which were in occupation of several tenants and that they were all independent of each other. Then the space in front of those quarters was demarcated, while the quarter occupied by the Petitioner was at some distance from the quarter in dispute. He also found that there was a separate latrine for her exclusive use and that in his opinion the accommodation in dispute could not be said to attract the provisions of Rule 7. Today the Petitioner produced a photo said to be of the Ahata to show that the disputed accommodation is really a portion of the accommodation in her possession. Admittedly, the building is a big Ahata with open space in the centre and a number of quarters existing on three sides. All these quarters are well marked and the front space pertaining to each is also demarcated. The number of such quarters as the Petitioner's Counsel has informed today is between 15 to 20 in this Ahata. The Rent Controller, who inspected the site, found after looking at the details, that the quarters were independent of one another and could not be said to be portions of the same accommodation. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that inasmuch as the quarters are part of the same building they must be deemed to be portions of the same accommodation for the purposes of Rule 7 of the Rules. I do not think a building containing a large number of tenements distinct from one another is the same thing as accommodation used in Rule 7. This is clear from the definition of the word accommodation itself which is that accommodation means residential and non-residential accommodation in any building or part of the building. The mere fact, therefore, that two or more apartments or tenements are joined together structurally or happen to exist adjacent to one another does not render them as portions of one accommodation. Each one of them is a separate accommodation which can comprise of a part of a building also. The contention of the Learned Counsel, for the Petitioner that the quarter in question must be held to be a part of the accommodation, which in the present case should be the Ahata, cannot be sustained. The Rent Controller himself saw the locality. He was competent to find whether or not the quarter in dispute was a portion of an accommodation over another portion of which the Petitioner was in occupation and he found that it was not so. There is nothing to hold that the conclusion reached by him was patently wrong such as can be reopened here.
(3.) Once the Rent Controller held that the disputed quarter was not part of the same accommodation as was in the occupation of the Petitioner, Rule 7 placed no obligation upon him to consult the Petitioner before making the allotment. The allotment order cannot be challenged on that ground.;