M. P. Saxena, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under Section 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter called the Act.
(2.) SMT. Brinjrani Mehrotra, opposite party No. 3 is the landlady of building No. 75, Malviya Nagar, Allahabad (Old No. 64/74 Yahiyapur, Allahabad). Machinery for extracting oil was installed in it. M/s. Jamuna Oil Mills, the petitioner, is a firm carrying on the business of extracting oil and other business incidental thereof. Originally there were five partners in this film, namely, Shri K. C. Mehrotra, Shri Narsing Das, Sardar Gur Charan Singh, Sardar Mahar Singh and Sri Sardar Singh. The petitioner firm took the building along with the machinery etc. installed in it on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- in 1955. The aforesaid partnership firm continued upto 12-11-1962 when it was reconstituted with only three partners, namely, Shri K. C. Mehrotra, Sardar Gur Charan Singh and Shri Nar Singh Das. It was duly registered as required by Section 58(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1953. On 27-5-1968 Gur Charan Singh, one of the partners died and the partnership stood dissolved in view of Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act. On 7-1-1975 Shri Pradeep Tandon, opposite party No. 2 moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allotment of a portion of this building on the ground that after the death of Sardar Gur Charan Singh, his son and Shri K. C. Mehrotra continued the partnership business. Sri Nar Singh Das ceased to be a partner but on 9-9-1974 he was again inducted as a partner and, as such, the building will be deemed to have fallen vacant within the meaning of Section 12(2) of the Act. It was also alleged that the firm had created vacancy by sub-letting a portion of this building to one Bishambhar Lal for residential purpose.
(3.) ON 17-4-1975 the landlady opposite party No. 3 moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the effect that the building was exempt from the operation of the said Act and he had no jurisdiction to deal with the allotment application. She also gave out that in case the building is deemed to have fallen vacant she may be granted time to move a release application before the disposal of the application for allotment. On 14-7-1975, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer negatived the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction by observing : "In the absence of lease, I am of the view that the portion of the building in dispute is not exempt from the operation of the Act and it definitely comes within the ambit of the Act." ;