R.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur, dated 12.10.1987 dismissing the petitioner's revision and upholding the order of release passed in favour of respondent No. 3, dated 16.12.1985.
(2.) THE facts of this case are the ground floor of House No. 113/226, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur was given on lease for a period of three years in favour of Hindustan Commercial Bank on 9.6.1977 for the residence of the petitioner who was an officer of the Bank. The period of lease executed in favour of the Bank expired on 9.6.1980 upon which the landlady gave a notice to the Bank informing that she is not prepared to renew the agreement after the expiry on 9.6.1980 and also intimated her desire that the Bank may vacate the said accommodation. It appears that the petitioner resigned from the bank on 6.12.1982 but still he continued to remain in possession of the accommodation in dispute. The landlady, however, died on 14.7.1984 and respondent No. 3 was substituted as the legal heir of the landlady. On 28.6.1983, the Bank intimated the landlady to terminate the lease executed in its favour and also wrote that since the petitioner was no more in service of the Bank and continued to occupy the accommodation in dispute, the landlord would be entitled to take possession of the accommodation in dispute from the petitioner in view of the termination of the lease in respect of the said premises. Thereafter, the landlady intimated the vacancy to the District Magistrate in respect of the premises and applied for the release of the accommodation in view of her bonafide need for the same. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report about the vacancy of the accommodation. The vacancy was declared on 17.9.1985 and thereafter, by the impugned Order, dated 16.12.1985, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the need of the landlord was bonafide and genuine and ordered the release of the accommodation in his favour. The petitioner feeling aggrieved went up in revision before the Additional District Judge who by his impugned order, dated 12.10.1987 dismissed the revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since after expiry of period of lease, the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the disputed accommodation and rent for some months was accepted by the landlady and hence the petitioner has become a tenant in his own right and in view of the same the accommodation could not be deemed to be vacant and consequently the release order was passed contrary to law. It may be remembered that the lease was entered into by the Bank and not by the petitioner. After the expiry of three years of lease, the Bank itself gave a notice to the landlady that the period of lease has expired and the Bank expressed its desire to terminate the contract. The question that arises is whether any tenancy could be created in favour of the petitioner merely by accepting rent for few months by the landlady. U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 clearly bars the letting of any accommodation to any person except in pursuance of the order of allotment under Section 16 of the Act. Section 11 of the Act clearly provides that no person shall let out any building except in pursuance of the allotment order issued under Section 16. Then Section 13 of the Act provides that no person shall occupy in any capacity otherwise than by an order or an order under Section 16 any building and if he does so, he will be deemed to be an unauthorised occupant of such building. Section 15 of the Act also creates an obligation on the part of the landlord to intimate the vacancy to the District Magistrate, Section 31 of the Act provides for imposition of penalty on any person who contravenes any provision of the Act. Thus, the Act clearly provides that a person shall not let out any building except in pursuance of an allotment order issued under Section 16 of the Act. In the present case, it is clear that there is no allotment order in favour of the petitioner in respect of the premises in dispute. The petitioner would be thus deemed an unauthorised occupant of the building in dispute which was rightly been declared vacant. In view of the vacancy declared in respect of the said premises, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has rightly allowed the release application in favour of the landlord on the ground that the need of the landlord is genuine and bonafide of the accommodation in dispute. The petitioner has no locus standi to contest the release application or the order of release passed in favour of the landlord. There is no merit in this writ petition which is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) IN the end, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that some time may be allowed to the petitioner to vacate the accommodation in dispute. In case the petitioner files an undertaking before respondent No. 2 within one month from today that he shall vacate and handover vacant possession of the said accommodation to respondent No. 3 by 30th June, 1988, the petitioner shall not be ejected from the accommodation in dispute till 30th June, 1988, provided he also deposits damages and mesne profit for a period of six months i.e., January to June, 1988, within a period of two months from today. In case the undertaking is not filed by the petitioner as stated above, and the conditions as stated above are not complied with, it will be open to respondent No. 3 to take recourse to law to take possession of the disputed accommodation.;