DR. A.C. DASS Vs. T.R.O. AND D.S.O. LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of Tandon, J. quashing by certiorari an order of a Rent Control and Eviction Officer, exercising the powers of a District Magistrate under the Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, directing respondent No. 3 to let out the front portion of the ground floor of a building known as "Aditya Bhavan," owned by her, to the appellant. Aditya Bhavan is a double-storeyed building; respondent No. 3 is in occupation of the upper story and she had let out the ground floor to one Dr. Hukku on monthly rent of Rs. 68-12-0. Dr. Hukku used to run a clinic in the front portion of the ground floor under the name of Hindu Muslim Pharmacy and used the back portion for accommodation of his patients. He died in Feb., 1954, and the clinic was inherited by his sister and heir Srimati Brij Pati Kaul respondent No. 2, who obtained possession over the entire ground floor. She commenced to reside in the back portion and reserved the front portion for use as a clinic to be run in the name of her brother. She entered into a partnership with the appellant under a deed dated Oct. 1, 1954. Under its terms the partnership was to run a pharmacy known as "Dr. Hukku's clinic and pharmacy" in the front portion, the appellant was to attend to the pharmacy every morning and evening and make available his professional services to the patients and the partnership was to pay the entire rent of the ground floor Rs. 68-12-0 per month to respondent No. 2. The deed further provided that on the partnership being dissolved the goodwill of the partnership would be sold to the partner who offered a higher amount and that the purchaser of the goodwill would run the pharmacy in the same name and would pay rent for the front portion direct to respondent No. 3 after settling the amount with her.

(2.) The partnership continued in force till Aug. 16, 1958, when respondent No. 2 served a notice upon the appellant for its dissolution. On 6-9-1958 she filed a suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts. The appellant, however, continued to be in occupation of the front portion and started his own clinic in the name "Dr. A. C. Das's clinic." He entered into a partnership with his own wife for running the clinic and she applied to the District Magistrate for allotment of the front portion to her, but her application was rejected on the ground of no vacancy, respondent No. 2 being in occupation of the back portion and the appellant, of the front portion. Later the appellant himself applied for the front portion to be allotted to him and on May 30, 1959, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted his application and on June 1, 1959, he issued an order, now quashed by Tandon, J. through his order under appeal directing respondent No. 3 to let out the front portion to the appellant and the back portion to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2, aggrieved by this order in respect of the front portion, applied for certiorari for the quashing of it. The gist of the case set up by her was as follows:-

(3.) The question before us is whether the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had jurisdiction to pass an order under Sec. 7(2) directing the proprietor, respondent No. 3, to let out the front portion of the ground floor to the appellant. By sub-sec. (1) of Section 7 every landlord is required to give notice to the District Magistrate of an accommodation becoming vacant by his ceasing to occupy it, or by his tenant's vacating it, or otherwise ceasing to occupy it, or by termination of his tenancy, or by release from requisitioning, or in any other manner whatsoever. By sub-sec. (2) the District Magistrate is authorised to require a landlord to let, or not to let, to any person any accommodation which is, or has fallen, or is about to fall, vacant.