- (1.) SUDNIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 18-11-1981 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring the dis puted premises as vacant and thereafter the order of release dated 30- 1-1982 in favour of the landlord-respondent and the order of the revisional authority dated 21-7-1982 affirming the said order in revision.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the house known as Jamuna Mahal, Katghar, Al lahabad, Maharaj Kashi Raj Dharam Karya Nidhi, Durg Ram Nagar, Varanasi was its owner. One Mangala Prasad on behalf of Respondent No. 1 filed an ap plication for release of the disputed ac commodation alleging that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants of the various portions of the house in question. Ramesh Chandra, Manager of the Trust, Respon dent No. 1, appointed as caretaker, Rama Shankar Lal Srivastava on 26-4-1979 on monthly salary of Rs. 150/- but he was not given any power to induct any tenant. THE property was to be utilized for the purpose of the trust. THE services of Rama Shankar Lal were terminated on 13-4-1980. He hardly worked for one year as caretaker on behalf of the Manager and he was removed at his work and conduct was not satisfac tory and in his place one Raghunath Prasad was appointed. THE various por tions were permitted to be occupied by Rama Shankar Lal who was not authorized to induct any person. He prayed that the disputed accommodation be declared as vacant. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. THE Rent Control Inspector submitted a report and found that the accommodation was in unauthorised occupation of the petitioners and other persons. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 18-11-1981 declared the disputed accommodation as vacant. Respondent No. 1 had filed application for release of the disputed premises. THE Rent Control and Eviction-Officer considering the bona fide need and taking into consideration all other aspects released the disputed ac commodation in favour of Respondent No. 1 on 30-1-1982. THE petitioners preferred a revision against the said order. THE revision was dismissed on 21-7-1982. THE petitioners have preferred the writ petition against these orders. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Faujdar Rai, learned Counsel for the con testing respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioners were inducted as tenant by Sri Rama Shankar Lal who was holding the power of attorney on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the petitioners were tenants of the disputed accommodation and not as unauthorized occupants. He has placed reliance on definition of the word landlord' as defined under Section 3 (j) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which defines 'landlord' as under - "landlord", in relation to a building, means a person to whom its rent is or if the building were let, would be, payable and includes, except in clause (g), the agent or attorney, or such person. " It is contended that agent or attorney of landlord shall also be treated as landlord under the provisions of the Act. He has placed reliance upon the decision Sarman Singh v. State of U. P and others, 1982 ARC 754, wherein it has been held that the nomination made by attorney of the landlord was valid as he was also landlord within the meaning of Section 3 (j) of the Act. It has, however, to be examined as to whether Rama Shankar Lal was holding the power of attorney conferring the power on him to let out the accommoda tion. The petitioner has not filed any ' documentary evidence to prove that Rama Shankar Lal had any power of attorney conferring power on him to let out any portion of the building. Mangla Prasad as Mukhtar-E-Aam on behalf of Respondent No. 1 filed application on 10-6-1981 for declaring the disputed accommodation as vacant. In paragraph 3 of the application it was stated by him that one Ramesh Chandra who was acting as Manager had appointed Rama Shankar Lal Srivastava as caretaker on monthly salary of Rs. 50/-look after and do the pairvi in respect of the property of Respondent No. 1. In para graph 4 of the application it was categori cally stated that Rama Shankar Lal had no power to let out any portion of the dis puted accommodation to any person. In paragraph 5 of the application it was stated that conduct of Rama Shankar Lal was not satisfactory. He was a temporary caretaker of the property. He was removed on 13-4-1980 and in his place one Raghunandan Prasad was appointed as caretaker.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis in para graph 3 of the application that Rama Shankar Lal was appointed to look after the property. This paragraph must be read along with paragraphs 4 and 5 of the ap plication wherein it has been specifically stated that he was simply caretaker and was not authorized to let out the premises in question to 4ny one it was for the petitioners to establish that he had power to let out the accommodation in question. The power of attorney depends as to what power has been given to him. A person who has not been authorized to let out the accommodation, cannot let out building simply on the ground that he was ap pointed as caretaker. There must be specific power given to such person to let out an accommodation. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that certain rent receipts were also issued by Rama Shankar Lal and he has Deferred to some receipts filed along with the supplementary af fidavit filed today There are four receipts with Annexure 3. They are for the period after 31-12-1979. As indicated above, Rama Shankar Lal having not been shown to have any authority to let out the accom modation in question, the rent receipts issued by him were irrelevant.;