DR. H.B. LALL Vs. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMANDANT, ALLOTMENT AND EVICTION AUTHORITY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a tenant of 76 -A, Boundary Road, Meerut Cantt. since about 1947. Respondent No. 2, Suit Kaushalya Devi, purchased this house in August, 1965. She wanting this house for her personal residence made an application for permission to sue for the eviction of the Petitioner Under Sec. 14 of the UP Cantonment (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1952. That application was after contest rejected on 26 -11 -1965 on the ground that the need of the landlord was not genuine. It appears that thereafter the landlord made an application Under Rule 9 of the UP Cantonment (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1954. Thereupon the Commandant passed an order on 4 -6 -1966 directing the Petitioner to vacate the accommodation Under Rule 9 because the landlord who had purchased the accommodation in August, 1965 requires it for her personal use. The Petitioner filed objections before the Administrative Commandant, a copy whereof is annexure 3 to the writ petition. These objections were rejected on 25 -6 -1966. The order deals with one of the objections only and holds that the conditions of Sec. 14 of the Act are different to Rule 9 and are not applicable to an application Under Rule 9. It required the Petitioner to take action for vacating the accommodation under the earlier order. The Petitioner prays that these orders be quashed.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Rule 9 was not at all applicable to the case of the Petitioner and that in any event Rule 9 was ultra vires the rule making powers conferred on the Central Government by Sec. 23 of the Act.

(3.) The first question is as to the interpretation of Rule 9 which reads as follows: