B.L.Yadav - (1.) WHETHER the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in proceedings under section 16 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (for short the Act), ignoring the material evidence on record, can be maintained, is the short question for determination in this petition filed by the tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner along with his brother Bhimraj was tenant of Shop No. 41 in dispute and respondent no. 3 Smt. Chandra Kala was the landlady. She made an application under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to release the shop as the petitioner has sub-let it to Sri P. K. Rastogi (not a party to this petition). A report was obtained from the Rent Control Inspector, which indicated that the back portion of the shop was delapidated. In that there were sign boards one being "Sewa Sadan Clinic" and the other as "Mahavir Mishthan Dhartawala" Prop. Arjun Lal Yogesh Kumar Gupta. The petitioner filed objection to the report of the Rent Control Inspector. His case was that he has not sub-let the tenancy to Sri Rastogi and no part of the shop was dilapidated, nor Rastogi Sweetmeat shop was run there, rather Sri Rastogi was an employee. Lateron he opened the shop at a different place, which was closed in 1985, but some Card Board named "Rastogi Sweetmeat Shop" appears to have been fabricated by the landlady. The petitioner filed a number of documents including purchase of items indicating that the payment was made to Sri Rastogi as servant for April, 1985 (vide Annexure 7 to the petition), a number of affidavits including that of Madan Lal (Annexure 8), Brijmohan (Annexure 9) and Bharat (Annexure 10) and affidavits of Chiranji Lal, Devendra Gopal Rastogi and Govind Singh were filed. Pradeep Kumar Rastogi himself filed an affidavit (vide Annexure 12-B) similarly other documents were also filed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 19-10-85 (Annexure 14), declared that the petitioner as tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under section 12 (2) of the Act. The petitioner's revision was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Dehradun by his order dated 19-11-87 (Annexure 15 to the petition). Sri H. S. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the application of respondent land lady was under Section 16 (1) (b) for the release of building, whereas the impugned order declaring the deemed vacancy was under section 12 of the Act for which no grounds were made out, and even the considerations in respect of release of vacant building did not weigh, nor even the comperative need of the landlady or the tenant was taken into account. The impugned orders, accordingly, cannot be sustained. It was next urged that important documentary, and oral evidence on record including receipts for purchase of items and payment to Pradeep Kumar Rastogi (Annexure-7) and the affidavit of Pradeep Kumar Rastogi, (Annexure 12-B) who was alleged to have occupied the shop after the petitioner or in whose favour sub-letting was alleged to have been, and other affidavits and important evidence have not been considered. The findings of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer ignoring important documentary and oral evidence on record, cannot be sustained. Reliance was placed on Nanhe v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1975 AWC 1 (FB), Smt. Sonawati v. Sri Ram, 1967 AWR 844.
(3.) SRI Ranjit Saxena, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, urged that just the nomenclature of the section, either section 16 or Section 12 would not be material. The substance of the order that the shop would be deemed to have fallen vacant, was the crucial question that has been decided and it was not necessary to refer to each and every piece of document and evidence, and that no ground for interference has been made out. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the first point that falls for determination is as to whether the relief for deemed vacancy under section 12 (2) could have been granted, when in fact, the application and prayer was under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. In order to arrive at a correct conclusion, it is better to state that the provisions of Sections 12 and 16 may harmoniously be considered so that both may operate in the field specified and indicated by the legisalture and not to create any repugnancy between its different provisions as it has been basic assumption underlying every exercise pertaining to construction that the legislature must be assumed not to have enacted to contradict itself. The court is also duty bound to prefer that interpretation which avoided repugnancy between two provisions of the Statute- See Associated Cement Company Ltd. v. CTO, AIR 1981 SC 1887. In the matter of rent control legislation the object of interpretation is to strike a balance between the landlord and the tenant and keeping in view the object of enactment to remove the hardship of the tenants.;