Writ petition filed to quash orders declaring vacancy and releasing accommodation under UP Rent Act. Court found no infirmity in lower courts' findings that petitioner was unauthorized occupant lacking allotment or consent, dismissing petition.
Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 26 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2706 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Kedar Respondent :- Smt. Vimla Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Kant Jha
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Oral
This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the judgment and order dated 16.4.2016, 26.12.2016 and 21.3.2018 passed by Additional City Magistrate Ist / Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar and Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Kanpur Nagar allowing the Release Application filed by the respondent Smt. Vimla wife of late Amar Singh.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Vimla wife of late Amar Singh had moved an application for declaration of vacancy under Section 15(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the statutory tenant - Dhuki Ram in whose favour allotment order had been issued by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had vacated the premises in question and one Ram Kedar had illegally occupied the house without consent of the landlady and without any allotment order issued from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.
The Rent Control Inspector inspected the premises and recorded the statement of the petitioner that he was paying rent to one Prem Lata who was the co-owner and who had demanded Rs. 500/- per month for the house in question. Later on, Smt. Prem Lata - the landlady refused to accept the rent and the petitioner was depositing the rent in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 569/70/2010 Smt. Vimla wife of late Amar Singh was not the landlady and she moved an application of vacancy to be declared under Section 15(1). The petitioner contested the application saying that he was living with the consent of the landlady for the past 35 years in the house in question and was also paying enhance rent as demanded by the landlady.
The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner / tenant was not noticed and the Additional City Magistrate Ist, Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar has declared vacancy by his order dated 16.4.2016. Thereafter Smt. Vimla wife of late Amar Singh made an application under Section
15(1)(b) for release of the accommodation in her favour which was also allowed by the order dated 26.12.2016 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar.
Aggrieved by the order of declaration of vacancy dated 16.4.2016 and release of the accommodation order dated 26.12.2016, the petitioner filed a Rent Control Revision in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar registered as Rent Revision No. 2 of 2017. The petitioner submitted his identity proof as well as residence proof including his ration card and birth certificate of his child for the accommodation in question, but it was ignored by the Revisional Court and the Rent Revision has been rejected by the order dated 21.3.2018.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Courts below have not considered the hardship faced by the petitioner who is the poor trolley puller with very small earning and has been living in the accommodation for the past 35 years and paying rent to Smt. Prem Lata who professed herself to be the landlady of the accommodation.
I have gone through the orders impugned dated 16.4.2016 by which the application for declaration of vacancy under Section 15(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been allowed after considering the affidavit filed by Ram Kedar - the petitioner that he was living in house 133/224, Rattupurwa, Kanpur Nagar for the past 35 years initially paying rent at the rate of Rs. 13/- per month and later on paying Rs. 500/- to the co-owner of the accommodation one Smt. Premlata and that he had tendered rent through money order to the said co-owner, but she refused to take the same and therefore he had filed an application under Section 30 and was depositing rent in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar in Misc Case No. 569/70/2010.
The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has also taken into account the affidavit filed by the owner of the accommodation - Smt. Vimla. It was established by her that she was the sole owner of the accommodation and she had never given any consent for the petitioner - Ram Kedar to occupy the two rooms accommodation. He was an unauthorised occupant and not a tenant - Dhuki Ram was earlier the tenant who died.
The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has referred to Section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and judgments of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court with regard to deemed vacancy. No documentary evidence was filed by the petitioner - Ram Kedar to show that he had ever been allotted in the
accommodation in question either by an order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer or by the consent of the landlady with due information being given to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in this regard. He has therefore declared vacancy of the accommodation in question on 16.4.2016.
In the order dated 26.12.2016, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has considered the application under Section 15(1)(b) of the landlady for the release of the accommodation in question after declaration of vacancy. Smt. Vimla was already residing on part of the house no. 133/224 Rattupurwa, Kanpur Nagar i.e. the house in dispute. Vacancy had been declared on 16.4.2016 Release Application was considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer with regard to the need of the growing family of Smt. Vimla. According to her, she had four family members one son Umesh Kumar had no accommodation for running his coaching classes and was therefore using the verandah of the house no. 133/224 Rattupurwa, Kanpur Nagar for running his coaching classes. There were two other grown up daughters also to be taken care of.
Having found substance in the application for release on the grounds of need of the growing family of Smt. Vimla, the application has been allowed on 26.13.2016 and the accommodation of one room and the verandah adjoining the said room vacated from the possession of Ram Kedar has been released in favour of the Smt. Vimla on the condition that she will not use the said premises for any purpose other than residential.
In the Rent Revision No. 2 of 2017, the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Kanpur Nagar has considered the submissions made by the petitioner and the judgments of the Supreme Court on the issue of declaration of vacancy and allowing of Release Application thereafter.
This Court has held in Arun Kumar Joseph Vs. Victor Samuel Mathew 2013 (2) ARC 884 that for an application for deemed vacancy to be moved, there is no limitation prescribed. If the accommodation in question is in the possession of unauthorised occupant, the application for declaration of vacancy and for release of accommodation can be moved by the landlord at any time.
Learned Additional District Judge has noticed that there was no allotment order issued by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in favour of the petitioner, nor there was any rent agreement between the petitioner and owner - Smt. Vimla. No rent
agreement even with Smt. Premlata could be shown.
Moreover, the learned Additional District Judge has observed that the petitioner could not show that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has allowed the application moved under Section 15(1) or Section 16(1) without any jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction vested in him by law. He has rejected therefore Rent Revision on 21.3.2018.
This Court having gone through the orders impugned does not find any factual or legal infirmity therein to show interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
This petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.5.2018 Arif
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Courts below committed any error or infirmity requiring interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in declaring vacancy and ordering release of accommodation.
Whether there was any lack of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in allowing the application under Section 15(1) and Section 15(1)(b).
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arun Kumar Joseph Vs. Victor Samuel MathewReferred¶18
Arun Kumar Joseph Vs. Victor Samuel Mathew 2013 (2) ARC 884
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Kedar
Smt. Vimla
Sangeeta Chandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
