Hari Ram Chimedia vs Suresh Chandra and Others

Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2521985 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejecting the release application filed by the petitioner under Section 16(l)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) and the order of respondent No. 1 affirming the said order in revision.

The facts, in brief, are that Suresh Chandra, respondent No. 1, filed application for allotment of the house No. 6, Naina Garh, District Jhansi on 19111983 on the ground that one Ramesh Chandra Jain was tenant of the said house who had died and his son Pramod Kumar left for Agra and the house is vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. The Rent Control Inspector submitted a report that Ramesh Chandra Jain was residing in western portion of the house and after his death his son became the tenant. The petitioner is landlord of the house. He filed an application for release alleging that he was earlier in Loco department of the Railway and subsequently he was transferred to Bombay. Ramesh Chandra Jain was his tenant and after his death Pramod Kumar became his tenant but he left for Agra. He prayed for release of the disputed accommodation on the ground that he retired from service on 2821983 and had to vacate the official residence. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the disputed accommodation as vacant on 121985. The release application filed by the petitioner was rejected on 2521985 and by the same order he allotted it to respondent No. 1. The petitioner preferred a revision and the revision has been dismissed on 15 101985.

The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was in service and he retired from service and after his retirement he was entitled to occupy the house in question. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer took the view that the son of the petitioner was living at Jhansi and therefore the petitioner does not require any further accommodation. The petitioner was entitled to occupy his own residence and the mere fact that his son was living at Jhansi was itself not a sufficient ground to reject the application. It was not an application filed by the petitioner under Section 21(l)(a) of the Act against a tenant where the need of the tenant was to be considered while comparing the hardship.

The second submission is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer acted illegally in passing the allotment order while rejecting the release application by the same order. In Smt. Praveen Azad v. 1st Additional District Judge, Badaun and others, 1997 (2) JCLR 800(A11), it has been held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer should first dispose of release application and only thereafter a date should be fixed for hearing the allotment application. Subrule (3) of Rule 9 provides that the District Magistrate shall issue notice to the landlord intimating the date fixed for consideration of the allotment application.

During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner has expired. The writ petition was filed by the deceased petitioner and the order being illegal the same is liable to be quashed.

The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 2521985 and 15101985 are hereby quashed. The matter shall be decided afresh taking into consideration the changed circumstances in the case. It is, however, made clear that in case the release application filed by the petitioner is again rejected, the allotment order which has already been passed in favour of respondent No. 1 shall be maintained and no other person shall be entitled to file any fresh application. Petition allowed