Allahabad High Court
Jagdish Prasad And Others vs Maharaj Kashi Raj Dharam Karya Nidhi And ... on 12 October, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(4)AWC642
JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.11.1981 passed by the Rent Control; and Eviction Officer declaring the disputed 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, Allahabad, Maharaj Kashi Raj Dharam Karya Nidhi, Durg Ram Nagar, Varanasi was its owner. One Mangala Prasad on behalf of respondent No. 1 filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation alleging that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants of the various portions of the house in question. Ramesh Chandra, Manager of the trust, respondent 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 utilised 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 as his work and conduct was not satisfactory and in his place one Raghunath Prasad was appointed. The various portions were permitted to be occupied by Rama Shankar Lal who was not authorised 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 accommodation 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.
3. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel for the contesting respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 unauthorised 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 Barman 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 accommodation. 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. Mangala Prasad as Mukhtar-E-Aatn 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 to look after and do the pairvi in respect of the property of respondent No. 1. In paragraph 4 of the application, it was categorically stated that Rama Shankar Lal had no power to let out any portion of the disputed 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.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis in paragraph 3 of the application that Rama Shankar Lal was appointed to look after the property. This paragraph must be read alongwith paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application wherein it has been specifically stated that he was simply caretaker and was not authorised to let out the premises in question to any 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 authorised to let out the accommodation, cannot let out building simply on the ground that he was appointed as caretaker. There must be specific power given to such person to let out an accommodation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that certain rent receipts were also issued by Rama Shankar Lal and he has referred to some receipts tiled along with the supplementary affidavit 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 accommodation in question, the rent receipts issued by him were irrelevant.
7. Secondly, the accommodation in question was let out after the year, 1976. This letting was in violation of Section 11 of the Act which provides that no person shall let out any building except in pursuance of an allotment order issued under Section 16 of the Act. Section 13 further lays down that if any person is in occupation of any building without any allotment order passed under Section 16 of the Act, his possession shall be deemed to be unauthorised. In Nutan Kumar v. Additional District Judge. 1993 (2) ARC 204, it has been held that if any person is in occupation in contravention of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act. his possession shall be deemed to be unauthorised. If an accommodation is in occupation of an unauthorised person it can be declared as vacant under law.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having let out the accommodation and there being delay in filing the application for declaring it vacant, the application should have been rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. He has placed reliance upon the decision in Smt. Brij Bala Jain v. Sri Amarjit Kaur and others, 1996 (2) ARC 474, wherein it was held that if the landlord had filed application for declaring the vacancy after about 12 years, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer should also consider the conduct of the landlord in filing the application at a belated stage when there was no explanation about his own conduct. This case has no application on the facts of the present case. Rama Shankar Lal was appointed as caretaker for the limited period between 26.4.1979 to 13.4.1980. He permitted the petitioner to occupy unauthorisedly. Mangala Prasad, Manager of the trust respondent No. 1 filed application to declare the disputed accommodation as vacant. After termination of the services of Rama Shankar Lal, there was hardly any delay in taking appropriate steps for declaring the disputed accommodation as vacant.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to an injunction order passed by the Civil Court. This injunction order does not prohibit the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to proceed in accordance with law in exercise of the power under Section 16 of the Act. The injunction order only prohibits the landlord from evicting the plaintiffs petitioners except in accordance with law.
10. The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners are in occupation of different portions of the building and each portion of the building is a separate unit and, therefore, the proceedings for declaration of different premises were to be taken separately. The defence of the petitioner in all the cases were common. If the defence was common, the matter can be decided jointly in one application.
11. As the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation since the year, 1980 without paying any damages, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000 payable to respondent No. 1.