S.D.Agarwala - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE property in dispute is house no. 209-D, Arvindpuri, Westend Road, Tanki Mohalla, Meerut Cantt. Originally, one Smt. Bhagwati Devi, widow of late Sri Jiya Lal Gupta, and Balwant Rai Shastri were the owners and landlords of the said property. On 10th January, 1983, the property in dispute was sold to the petitioner Smt. Shashi Govil, wife of Rameshwar Nath Govil and consequently, she became the landlady of the premises in dispute. THE original tenant of the property was one Niranjan Lai Jain. He died in March, 1977, leaving behind three sons, namely, V. K. Jain, S. K. Jain and J. K. Jain. Since J. K. Jain was, admittedly, not living with his father, the tenancy rights were inherited by V. K. Jain and S. K. Jain alone. THEy became tenants-in-common of the property in dispute and are respondent nos. 3 and 4 respectively to this petition. In the year 1979, S. K. Jain was transferred to the Delhi Branch of the State Bank of India and was also provided with an official accommodation at 'Greater Kailash. V. K. Jain was transferred on 9th March, 1983, to the Narendra Nagar Branch of the State Bank of India, district Pauri Oarhwal. On 8th June, 1983, Y. C. Agarwal applied for allotment of the house in dispute on the ground that the property should be deemed vacant. On this application of Y. C. Agarwal, the Rent Control Inspector was directed to submit a report. THE Rent Control Inspector submitted his report on 2nd August, 1983, stating that the property be deemed vacant. On 24th August, 1983, a vacancy was notified by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. On 24th August, 1983, itself, the landlady filed an application for v release under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act on the ground that she needed the accommodation for" her personal use. This application was allowed by the Delegated Authority/District Supply Officer, Meerut, by his order dated 29th August, 1984, and the property was released in favour of the petitioner. He further found that the need of the landlady was bonafide and genuine. Aggrieved by the said decision, respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 filed a revision in the court of the District Judge, Meerut, under section 18 of the Act. The District Judge, Meerut, by his order dated 18 th December, 1984, allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Delegated Authority/District Supply Officer, Meerut, releasing the accommodation in dispute in favour of the petitioner. It is this order dated 18th December, 1984, which has been impugned in the present petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised four contentions before me. His first contention is that the tenant respondents, in fact, own six big independent residential flats consisting of several rooms in the city of Meerut itself. Two flats fell vacant and, consequently, the property should be deemed to be vacant under the provisions of section 12 (3) of the Act. The second submission is that S. K. Jain having been transferred to Delhi and he having started living in Greater Kailash, the property would be deemed to be vacant under section 12 (1) (c) read with section 12 (3-A) of the Act. The third submission is that so far as V. K. Jain is concerned, he having been transferred to Narendra Nagar and he as well as the members of his family having taken up residence in Narendra Nagar, the property should be deemed to be vacant under section 12 (1) (c) of the Act and the view, to the contrary, taken by the revisional authority is manifestly erroneous. The fourth submission made by the learned counsel is that the revisional authority has acted illegally and with material irregularity in determining the question of vacancy on the premise that the question of vacancy has to be determined when an application comes for allotment or the landlord applies for release of the accommodation in bis favour. Since the revision has been considered on a wrong premises, the entire judgment is vitiated in law. I will consider the last submission first. Section 12 of the Act provides the various circumstances when the building shall be deemed to be vacant. The property would be deemed to be vacant, when one of the circumstances laid down in section 12 of the Act has occurred. As an example, it may be stated that the building would be deemed vacant if the tenant has substantially removed his effects therefrom or if it is allowed to be occupied by any other person, who is not a member of the family or in the case of a residential building, he as well as members of his family have taken up residence, not being temporary residence, elsewhere. Again, it may be a case where in the case of a residential building if a tenant or the members of his family builds or otherwise acquires in a vacant state for residential purpose in the same city, he would be deemed to have ceased to occupy the said building under tenancy. Similarly, under section 12 (3-A) of the Act, if a tenant of a residential building holding a transferable post is transferred and, on transfer, he is provided with an official residence, he would be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under tenancy. All these circumstances indicate that it is on the happening of an event contemplated by section 12 of the Act, that the property would be deemed to be vacant or the tenant would be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. On a reading of section 12 of the Act, it cannot be said that the relevant date for determining the question of deemed vacancy is the date on which an application for allotment is made or a release application has been filed. If that be so, the very purpose of the Act would be completely defeated. As an example, it may be pointed out that if a tenant has substantially removed his effects on a particular day and if the property is not deemed to be vacant on that day and is allowed to be occupied by any other person then it will be possible for him to defeat the very purpose of the Act. This was not intended. Similarly, after acquiring a property in a vacant state, the same can thereafter be permitted to be occupied by another person and it can then be urged that the tenanted property cannot be deemed to be vacant. The above circumstances clearly establish the legislative intent that the filing of the application for allotment or an application for release is not the relevant date for determining the question of vacancy.;