Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sarla Devi vs Ivth Addl. District And Session Judge, ... on 29 May, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)AWC182
Author: A.S. Gill
Bench: A.S. Gill
JUDGMENT A.S. Gill, J.
1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 3.7.1981 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Faizabad and the order dated 19.7.1982 passed in revision by IVth Additional District Judge, Faizabad dismissing the application for release of the disputed house in her favour.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that House No. 4/4/60, Rath Haveli, Faizabad belongs to petitioner's husband, who lives in Calcutta. This house is double storeyed. Both the storeys were on rent. The ground floor was in the occupancy of one Raj Mani Trigunayat, who was allotted the accommodation by the Prescribed Authority. He was transferred to Allahabad and the premises became vacant. According to the petitioner, she came to live in that portion and during summer, she had gone to Sultanpur when at her back opposite party No. 3 Raj Mani on account of his influence got allotted the ground floor of the house in his favour and forcibly occupied the same. She filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer but the same was dismissed, and the revision against that order was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge.
3. A perusal of the order of both the authorities below would indicate that the petitioner was not found to be landlady of the house and no objections were filed earlier to the allotment of the house in favour of opposite party No. 3. It has been contsnded before this Court that the learned Prescribed Authority in most arbitrary manner has decided the allotment application even without disposing of the amendment application filed by her and once the revisional authority observed that there were some irregularities in the allotment procedure, the allotment should have been cancelled by the revisional authority.
4. An application under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for release of the building under occupation of a tenant or otherwise having fallen vacant can be made by the landlord. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the landlady of the house in question. Her claim is that her husband is living at Calcutta and she is working as teacher in Faizabad and when the disputed portion of the house fell vacant on the transfer of earlier tenant, she came to live in that house. In the counter-affidavit, it has been categorically asserted that the petitioner is living separate from her husband Satya Prakash Srivastava for the last 17 years who is not having any concern with the petitioner and the petitioner has not cared to file any rejoinder to this assertion in this petition. She also admitted that the tenant living on the upper storey was sending rent to her husband at Calcutta through post which implies that she is not even realising the rent in the absence of her husband from other tenants. Even against the decision of the authorities below. Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava, husband of the petitioner, has not cared to file the petition himself or give any authorisation in favour of the petitioner to file the present petition. There is no plea even in this petition that she was authorised by her husband to file the application for release of the disputed portion of the house or for that matter, the present petition. The petitioner thus had no locus to file any application against allotment of the ground floor of the house of her husband in favour of opposite party No. 3 or to seek release of the accommodation in her favour on the basis of personal need and requirement. It is also not disputed that the earlier tenant in the disputed portion was an allottee from the Prescribed Authority and on his transfer from Faizabad, premises became vacant for the purposes of allotment as well as for release. If any, in favour of the landlord on specified grounds. However, admittedly, neither the owner/landlord nor the petitioner in any capacity, moved any application on the vacancy so caused under Section 16 of the Act for release of this portion of the house and when vacancy was notified and the allotment was made in favour of opposite party No. 3, the petitioner moved the application as aforesaid but admittedly she had no locus to file the petition. Even application so moved by the petitioner was on wrong facts because she denied if the ground floor of the house was ever given on rent to anyone whereas admittedly the same portion was under occupation of a tenant on allotment. The report of the Rent Control Inspector dated 14.5.81 also confirms this fact. Even the contention of the learned counsel that the Prescribed Authority did not dispose of the amendment application and instead disposed of the application of the petitioner appears to be not of much avail to the petitioner, as it is disclosed in the judgment of the Additional District Judge (Annexure 3) that the amendment was not sought in the averments of the petition rather the amendment was sought in the verification of the facts disclosed in the petition which was not there in the original release application because on objection that the release petition was not duly verified, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had allowed time to move application for amendment. When the application was moved, the petitioner was not present and the Prescribed Authority disposed of the release application vide, impugned order, Annexure 1, and the same was dismissed not on account of absence of verification but on merits as well as legal objections that petitioner had no locus. The order of the Prescribed Authority (Annexure 1) discloses that even the release application did not disclose any reasons or change of circumstances for the lady to claim release of the portion in her favour apart from the absence of any locus in her to file the petition. Thus, the release application having been disposed of at that stage in the peculiar circumstances of this case did not prejudice the petitioner in any manner because the amendment was not sought for pleading certain more facts. The petitioner at no stage even before this court showed as to in what circumstances she claimed herself to be the landlady of the disputed house. There is thus no merit in this petition arid the same is required to be dismissed.
5. In view of what has been observed above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.