Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated the February 12, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2862 of 1963.

B. C. Misra, M. V. Goswami, and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the appellant.

J. P. Goyal and H. K. Puri, for the respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. The appellant is the tenant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the landlords of a non-residential accommodation in a. part of a building in Mohalla Bulanala in the city of Varanasi. Respondent No. 1 as the allottee of the accommodation. Respondent No. 5 is the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi, authorised by the District Magistrate to perform his functions under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On February 11, 1956 the landlords obtained a decree for ejectment of the tenant from the accommodation. As the tenant was about to vacate the accommodation, on February 20, 1957, respondent No. 5 passed order under s.. 7(2) of the Act directing the landlords to let the accommodation to respondent No. 1. On February 22,.1957, the landlords and the tenant agreed that the tenant would continue to occupy the accommodation at an enhanced rent and would be liable to eviction in execution of the decree for ejectment in the event of his failing to pay the outstanding arrears of rent in certain stated instalments. As the tenant failed to pay the agreed instal- ments of rent, on May 21, 1957, the landlords in execution of the decree for ejectment obtained an order from the executing court for the issue of a warrant for delivery of possession. In the meantime on 'February 23, 1957, proceedings were started against the appellant under S. 7A(1) of the Act. By an order dated March 23, 1957, under S. 7A(2) respondent No. 5 directed the tenant to vacate the accommodation by March 24, 1957. By another order dated December 2, 1957, under S. 7A(3) respondent No. 5 directed S.O. P. S. Chowk to evict the tenant and put the allottee in occupation of the accommodation. The tenant filed a writ petition challenging the orders of respondent No. 5. The writ petition was dismissed and the tenant was relegated to a suit. A special appeal from this order filed by the tenant was also dismissed. On September, 9, 1958, the tenant filed the present suit asking for a declaration that the orders passed by respondent No. 5 were without jurisdic- tion and for consequential reliefs. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appellate court reversed this decree and decreed the suit. On second appeal, the High Court restored the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. The tenant has now filed this appeal by special leave.