Shyam Lal Sahu vs Phoolmati Devi and Others

Rakesh Sharma, J.

Heard Sri M.S. Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitionerlandlord and Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

At the outset, it is relevant to mention that this petition is one of the oldest rent control matters pending in this Court since 25.5.1984. As per ordersheet of the case, it was finally heard on three occasions and remained apartheard matter from 4.9.1997 to 8.9.1998. Later on, it was released and by order dated 17.2.2001 of Hon''ble the Senior Judge, it was laid before the Bench for hearing. The matter was finally heard on 9.9.2003 and 10.9.2003 and the writ petition was allowed on 1.1.2003 quashing the impugned judgments and orders. On 19.12.2003, however, a new counsel was engaged by respondent No.1 and he made an application (C.M. Application No.1570 of 2003) seeking recall of the said judgment and order passed dated 1.10.2003 on the ground that the learned counsel for respondent No.1 was not available to argue the matter when the same was finally heard. On the said application, Hon''ble the Acting Chief Justice passed orders on 8.9.2004 directing the case to be laid before the appropriate Bench, as indicated in the order. After passing through 23 Benches, the matter was finally laid before the same Bench, which had finally disposed of the matter and allowed the petition on 1.10.2003. This application for recall of the said judgment and order dated 1.10.2003 thus remained pending for a long time. The same was ultimately allowed on 1.10.2005. The judgment and order dated 1.10.2003 was recalled and the case was restored to its original number. It is noteworthy that the said judgment and order of the Court passed on 1.10.2003 was recalled at the instance of respondent No.1 Smt. Phool Mali Devi. The petitioner''s counsel was aggrieved by this order dated 10.8.2005, hence he filed a formal application for recalling the said order. However, this application was not pressed by Sri M.S. Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the same was accordingly rejected on 17.5.2006. The Court fixed the case for final hearing. Since this writ petition was presented in Court on 24.5.1984 and the litigation was still alive, it was in the interest of justice to dispose it of expeditiously without allowing unnecessary adjournments. It was fixed for hearing on 17.5.2006. On 18.5.2006, the matter was heard and arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner were concluded but the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.1 remained inconclusive, hence the case was ordered to be listed on 22.5.2006 for arguments of respondent''s counsel. On that date, the respondent''s counsel was on sanctioned leave; the case was then listed on 7.7.2006 and finally on 20.7.2006 the arguments of learned counsel for the parties were heard and concluded, and the judgment was reserved.

The petitioner, through this petition, has assailed the two orders one passed on 26.9.1983 by the Prescribed Authority (Rent Control), Lucknow, appointed under the UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the UP. Act XIII of 1972, rejecting the release application and the subsequent order dated 13.3.1984 passed by the revisional Court i.e. Special Judge, Lucknow dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order of Prescribed Authority.

The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is the owner landlord of the house in question, consisting of two rooms, one shop, two latrinebathrooms and one open courtyard having an area of 500 sqr. ft., situate in central location of Mohalla Daliganj in the city of Lucknow. This house was purchased by the petitioner for residential purposes for his personal use and occupation through a registered saledeed executed on 14.2.1969 from its previous owner. At the time of purchase of the said house, one Smt. Naraini Devi, wife of late Nanhu Bhujwa was in occupation and possession of the said house as its tenant. She was an issueless lady, maintaining herself by roasting cereals, running a parcher''s oven (BHAR) and roasting cereals. Initially, this house was taken on rent by Nanhu Bhujwa and after his death, the tenancy rights of the said house devolved on his surviving wife Smt. Naraini Devi. Smt. Naraini Devi also died on 24.3.1979, i.e. after about ten years of the purchase of the house by the petitionerlandlord, leaving behind no heirs in the premises in question except her husband''s niece (brother''s daughter) Smt. Naraini Dei, who was living close to the premises in question (not in the house in question purchased by the petitionerlandlord). After purchase of the house in question, Smt. Naraini Devi became the tenant but the receipts for payment of the rent had been issued by the petitioner in the name of Nanhu Bhujwa, the original teant, for a considerable time i.e. upto May, 1975. These receipts were duly acknowledged by Smt. Naraini Devi after putting her thumb impression. Subsequently, the landlord started issuing receipts in the name of Smt. Naraini Devi, the sole heir of the original tenant late Nanhu Bhujwa. Some of the receipts have been placed on record by the petitionerlandlord.

As per petitioner, at the time of death of Smt. Naraini Devi on 24.3.1979, nobody was normally residing with her in the premises in question. After learning about the death of Smt. Naraini Devi, the petitionerlandlord immediately moved an application before the District Magistrate/Rent Control Officer, Lucknow on 21.4.1979 for releasing the premises. This release application was submitted within one month of the death of sole tenant Smt. Naraini Devi, who was alone residing in the house in question. A few days after the death of Smt. Naraini Devi, one Smt. Phoolmati Devi, respondent No. 1 said to be a distant relative of late Smt. Naraini Devi, came to Daliganj, Lucknow and illegally occupied the premises in question. The petitionerlandlord has proved this fact by filing a certified copy of the statement made by Smt. Phoolmati Devi in Case No.3022 of 1977 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by her against her husband Sri Shriram. This lady, Smt. Phoolmati Devi had stated before the Judicial Magistrate that she was not residing with late Smt. Naraini Devi, her BUA (father''s sister); she was simply working at Smt. Naraini Devi''s shop on daily wages. This statement was made on oath before a Court of law. By this fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to demonstrate before the Court that Smt. Phoolmati Devi was a trespasser, encroacher, who was illegally trying to grab the property without obtaining a formal order of allotment from the Rent Control Officer, Lucknow.

The petitionerlandlord submitted an application for release of the premises under Section 16 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 indicating therein that he had purchased the house in question by a registered saledeed executed on 24.2.1969 from its previous owner. The petitioner is a shopkeeper and carries on the business of Khutiya (smal1 pieces of sweets made of Tilseeds mixed with jaggery or sugar, also called as Rewri) from a rented shop in Daliganj Bazar. He had a large family to maintain, whereas Smt. Phool Mati Devi was in illegal and unauthorized possession of the premises in question. She was not a family member of late Smt. Naraini Devi, previous tenant in anyway, by virtue of which she could inherit the tenancy of late Smt. Naraini Devi as per provisions contained in the relevant rent laws. This illegal and unauthorized occupant of the premises had refused to vacate the premises, which was purchased by the petitioner on 24.2.1969 for his own use and occupation. The petitionerlandlord did not own any other residential or nonresidential accommodation in the city of Lucknow except the one in the occupation of Smt. Phool Mati Devi, unauthorized occupant. He had indicated his need in the application highlighting the fact of his sixmember family to be supported and accommodated. He wanted to expand his business for the benefits of his growing family.

Objections to this application were filed by the respondent No.1, to which the petitioner filed a rejoinder. The petitioner had also filed several documents, affidavits of three neighbours to demonstrate that Smt. Phool Mati Devi was the dauthter of Udal, brother of late Smt. Naraini Devi. Smt. Phool Mati Devi was married with one Shri Ram, resident of village Gauri, in district Lucknow. The authors of the affidavits denied that any GODNAMA (adoptiondeed) was executed by Smt. Naraini Devi in favour of Smt. Phool Mati Devi, her niece.

After hearing both the sides and considering the release application, the written statement and the affidavits filed by the petitioner Shyam Lal Sahu, landlord and Smt. Phool Mati Devi, the Prescribed Authority under Rent Control Act/Additional District Magistrate, lucknow passed a detailed order on 5.1.1981 declaring vacancy in the premises. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority is quoted below:

Against the above order of the Prescribed Authority, objections were filed by Smt. Phool Mati Devi on 23.1.1981 inter alia indicating that her counsel was not available in Lucknow on the said date i.e. on 5 1.1981 and as such he could not appear before the Rent Control Authority. She accordingly prayed that the order dated 5.1.1981 be recalled.

Sri R.K. Kunwar, competent Authority under the Rent Control Act heard the matter and by order dated 26.4.1981 only provided that Smt. Phool Mati Devi be given another opportunity to put up her case before the final orders in the matter were issued. However, the order declaring the vacancy on 5.1.1981 was not set aside by the said authority. Subsequently, Sri Prem Marian Dwivedi, Additional City Magistrate (IV), Lucknow (an officer junior in rank to the Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow) illegally reheard the matter, reviewed the earlier order of Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow dated 5.1.1981 and rejected the application for release submitted by the petitioner on 21.4.1979 by his order dated 26.9.1983.

Being aggrieved of the order dated 26.9.1983, the petitioner preferred a revision on 10.10.1983 which was dismissed by the Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Lucknow on 13.3.1984 confirming the order dated 26.9.1983 passed by the Rent Control Authority. The petitioner had taken several pleas in the memo of revision (copy of which has been filed as Annexure17 to the writ petition) but the same were ignored.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Additional City Magistrate (IV), Lucknow was not competent to review the initial order declaring vacancy issued on 5.1.1981 by the Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow. The Additional City Magistrate (IV), Lucknow vide order dated 26.9.1983 did not pass any order against the order declaring the vacancy issued on 5.1.1981, but had recalled the subsequent order dated 26.4.1981. This was not permissible under law. According to the learned counsel, an authority much lower in rank to the authority, who had passed the earlier order, was not competent to do so. Moreover, the order declaring the vacancy on 5.1.1981 was not touched by the said authority. The order of the said authority dated 26.9.1983 was wholly illegal, unjust and improper inasmuch as it had ignored the report of Senior Rent Control Inspector dated 2.6.1979 and had misinterpreted the various provisions of the Rent Control Act and Section 15(1)(d) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This authority had erred in holding that Smt. Phool Mati Devi was normally residing with Smt. Naraini Devi at the time of her death. It had illegally placed reliance on an unproved Photostat copy of the alleged Will executed in the year 1954. The said authority had wdrongly held the brother''s daughter (niece) as a legal heir of respondent No.1 Smt. Naraini Devi while his father, brother of Smt. Naraini Devi, was still alive having other children.

The revisional Court had also erred in holding that Smt. Phool Mati Devi, daughter of deceased tenant''s living brother, was her (Smt. Naraini Devi''s) legal heir and as such entitled to continue in the house in question as tenant. The revisional Court has also excluded from consideration the detailed submissions on facts and law put in the memo of revision. Smt. Phool Mati Devi''s father Sri Udal was alive. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when father, real brother of deceased tenant was alive, how could his daughter succeed his rights. Moreover, under the Rent Control Laws, Smt. Phool Mati Devi was not a member of the family or a legal heir of the deceased tenant Smt. Naraini Devi. After the death of Smt. Naraini Devi on 24.3.1979, vacancy did occur in the residential accommodation and the Rent Control Authority vide order dated 5.1.1981 had rightly issued a declaration in this regard after considering the affidavits, objections and versions of the parties. There was no material or any legal point available with the respondent No.1 Smt. Phool Mati Devi before the Courts below to disturb the finding or the order dated 5.1.1981. Both the Courts below had relied on the statement of Smt. Phool Mati Devi, who was in fact a tresspasser, unauthorized occupant. Immediately after the death of Smt. Naraini Devi, Smt. Phool Mati Devi illegally grabbed the property and with this illegal design, a fabricated case was put up before the Courts below. It was the burden of Smt. Phool Mati Devi to discharge as to how she entered the house in question after the death of Smt. Naraini Devi and who the landlord who had immediately, within thirty days, had filed a release application before the competent authority, should not be allowed to occupy his own house which he purchased long back and was waiting for its vacancy.

Sri M.S. Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts but these findings are wholly perverse, based on wrong interpretation and wrong application of law. The relevant provisions of the UP. Act XIII of 1972 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 have been misinterpreted and wrongly applied in the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned judgments and orders are contrary to the records. The learned Courts below had clearly erred in facts and law both while holding that respondent No.1 Smt. Phool Mati Devi was the heir of late Smt. Naraini Devi. They have also ignored the plea of the petitioner that Smt. Phool Mati Devi was not the legal heir of Nanhu Bhujwa, husband of the then tenant Smt. Naraini Devi. In fact, it was categorically pleaded before the Courts below that Smt. Phool Mati Devi was the daughter of one Udal real brother of Smt. Naraini Devi who was resident of village Saraiya, P.S. Banthara, district Lucknow and was alive at the time of death of Smt. Naraini Devi. According to her own statement, Smt. Phool Mati Devi was a married lady and after her desertion, she was living with her parents. Under law of succession, a living brother was in the first category and thereafter a niece could be considered as heir of Smt. Naraini Devi, as per Section 15(1)(d) of the Hindu Succession Act. Smt. Phool Mati Devi had not given details of the legal heirs left by late Nanhu Bhujwa, the original tenant, after whose death Smt. Naraini Devi was treated as tenant. Both the Courts below have ignored this material fact.

Sri M.S. Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that both the Courts below have not considered that as per Senior Rent Control Inspector''s report and statement of the petitioner, Smt. Phool Mati Devi was not normally residing with the deceased Smt. Naraini Devi and she had taken possession of the premises in question illegally after a few days of her death. The Inspector''s report was not challenged by Smt. Phool Mati Devi at any stage in any appropriate forum. This report is a material document which ought to have been relied upon by the Courts below. Sri R.K. Kunwar, Additional District Magistrate I, while passing the order dated 5.1.1981 had considered this report and given weight age to the same and his findings based on the Rent Control Inspector''s report and the affidavits of the parties ought not to have been reversed. The Courts below have erred in deciding the case in two phases, one for the residential purposes and the other for the shop purposes. In fact, the parcher''s oven (BHAR) was put in a very small portion, corner of a room. The whole unit should have been treated as a residential house, covered by Section 3 (1)(A) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The Courts below have failed'') consider that unless the normal residence of Smt. Phool Mati Devi with Smt. Naraini devi at the time of her death was proved (which was not proved at all), Smt. Phool Mati Devi could not be held to be the heir of deceased Naraini Devi and the benefits arising out of the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 could not be made available to her. The petitioner has challenged the alleged Will and submitted that the same being a fabricated one could not provide any benefit to the niece of the tenant. It has also been brought on record that Smt. Phool Mati Devi had a son from her husband Shri Ram and as such how a married lady with a son could be said to have lived with her BUA Smt. Naraini Devi, tenant throughout her married life. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, a fabricated story has been set up by Smt. Phool Mati Devi after the death of Smt. Naraini Devi with a view to illegally enter and grab the property without obtaining a formal order of allotment in her favour under the Rent Control Laws.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Smt. Phool Mati Devi made a statement before the Judicial Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband that she was doing the business of roasting food grains on contract at her BUA''s shop; she was not normally residing with her BUA. It was indicated in the statement that her parents (Udal, etc.) were living at village Saraiya, P.S. Banthara, district Lucknow and she also lived with her parents. She had further stated before the concerned Magistrate in the said proceedings that she was not supported by her BUA, Aunt Smt. Naraini Devi and as such was not normally residing with her. It is significant to note that in view of aforesaid statement, made much before the date of execution of the socalled Will, the averments made in the said Will became wrong. The reliance placed on the said Will to prove her residence with her BUA in the premises in question and the findings arrived at by the Courts below in this regard become unfounded and erroneous. Both the Courts below have excluded from consideration this relevant material, statement made on oath before a Court of law by Smt. Phool Mati Devi. The revisional Court has committed an illegality in confirming the erroneous judgment and order passed by the Rent Control Authority who itself had excluded from consideration the wellconsidered, wellreasoned order passed by its predecessor declaring the vacancy in 5.1.1981. In fact the order dated 5.1.1981 was not recalled or set aside. The revisional Court ought to have held that Smt. Phool Mati Devi was an illegal and unauthorized occupant. It had further erred in law in not giving a finding that the Rent Control Authority had committed illegality and irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction by not declaring the vacancy of the house in dispute, specially when Smt. Phool Mati Devi did not have any legal or valid order of allotment, nor had she ever approached the competent authority for issuing an order of allotment in her favour indicating the fact that her BUA had died and she was her legal heir. The revisional Court had further committed an illegality in not deciding the revision as per provisions of Section 18 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972.

Sri M.S.Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a covered area measuring 1100 sqr. ft. including an open area of 500 sqr. ft. as courtyard with three rooms and other amenities, in the main market area of Daliganj in the city of Lucknow was let out at Rs.151 per month, which was ''no rent'' in the eye of law. Smt. Phool Mati Devi did not even pay this meager rent to the petitioner. The respondent No.1 had also not made any efforts for searching an alternative accommodation during last 26 years after filing of the release application. Sri Kotwal has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the petitioner is an old and infirm person; he had indicated in the release application that he had no house to live in the city of Lucknow. He had a family consisting of six persons to support. He was carrying on business of Khutiya (Rewri) from a nearby rented shop, while the respondent No.1 Smt. Phool Mati Devi, a single person, trespasser and unauthorized occupant was enjoying the benefits of the property consisting of three rooms and a big courtyard alongwith other amenities. She had already enjoyed the benefits of longdrawn litigation. The landlord who had purchased the property on 24.2.1969 was still waiting to live in his own house i.e. the premises in question. He also wanted to expand his business to augment income to support his family. Both the Courts below failed to appreciate the bona and genuine need of the landlord for the accommodation in question. The landlord was in an urgent need of the accommodation to live in it alongwith his large family. The Courts below have ignored these material points while deciding the application for release which was filed about 37 years ago.

Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for Smt. Phool Mati Devi, respondent No.1 has resisted the writ petition. He has submitted that Smt.Phool Mati Devi was the niece (brother''s daughter) of Smt. Naraini Devi. She had been living with her BUA (aunt) since her childhood. The details of the accommodation have been indicated by the learned counsel for respondent No.1. According to him, the house in question is made of mud and bricks and could be used by a person, who was carrying on business of roasting food grains in a parcher''s oven (BHAR). However, the measurements of the accommodation have been given in the additional pleas contained in the written statement filed before the prescribed authority under Rent Control laws. He has further submitted that in fact the respondent No.1 was adopted by her BUA Smt. Naraini Devi, wife of late Nanhu Bhujwa in the year 1954 with the consent of her husband. She was brought up by Smt. Naraini Devi and her marriage was also performed by Smt. Naraini Devi She was BHATUI (niece), brother''s daughter of Smt. Naraini Devi and in the absence of any other heir of Smt. Naraini Devi, she was the only legal heir and therefore, she inherited the tenancy rights after the death of Smt. Naraini Devi, the original tenant. Smt. Naraini Devi, during her life time, had executed a Will dated 20.4.1977 in the presence of two witnesses, Krishna Kant Misra and Vishwanath Prajapati, in her favour. This Will was registered in the office of SubRegistrar, Lucknow, by which late Smt. Naraini Devi bequeathed the tenancy rights of the house in question in favour of her niece Smt. Phool Mati Devi. Smt. Phool Mati Devi was married to one Shri Ram but he had deserted her after a few years of their marriage. She had filed a case against her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. She is running the business of Bhujwa (roasting of foodgrains) in the outer room of the premises. She is in the same vocation and occupation as was being practised by her BUA late Smt. Naraini Devi.

Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has further submitted that the landlord had filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 seeking release of the premises against late Smt. Naraini Devi. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the release application and the appeal was also dismissed with the observation that the landlord''s need was not bona fide and genuine. However, this litigation took place between the petitioner and late Smt. Naraini Devi, the original tenant, BUA of Smt. Phool Mati Devi. The petitioner is having other accommodations in the city of Lucknow where he is living with his mother and brother. He is also having pucka shops. He had moved the application for release with the sole intention of earning higher rent. The need of the landlord was not bona fide and genuine. Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava has laid much stress on the point that being the only legal heir of late Smt. Naraini Devi, Smt. Phool Mati Devi had become tenant of the premises in question under Section 3 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The house in question was not vacant. The petitioner had made a misconceived application under Section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The petitioner had no right to file this application. The only right which a landlord in these circumstances had, was to approach the appropriate authority under Section 21 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava has led the Court through the definition of the word ''tenant'' which includes such heirs, who normally reside with the tenant, as provided under Section 3 of the said Act. According to him, a legal heir under law can succeed the tenancy. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, when Smt. Phool Mati Devi was living in the premises in dispute for a long time and was present at the time of death of Smt. Naraini Devi, it cannot be said that she was in unauthorized and illegal occupation of the premises in question. She is a legal heir of Smt. Naraini Devi and was residing with her. Even the Rent Control Inspector in para 3 of his report has indicated that she had been living in the house in question for two months. The findings recorded by both the Courts below were legal, just and proper, their judgments and orders are wellconsidered and wellreasoned, passed after taking into account the relevant provisions of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts that the respondent No.1 Smt. Phool Mati Devi was residing at the house of her BUA and had been earning her livelihood by reasting foodgrains, paddy on wages. The legal heirs, who were residing with the tenant, are entitled to inherit tenancy rights. In the present case, Smt. Phool Mati Devi was adopted as daughter by Smt. Naraini Devi in the year 1954. A registered Will was also executed in her favour on 20.4.1978 before the death of her BUA Smt. Naraini Devi on 24.3.1979. To sum up, his submission was that there was no vacancy of the premises as the same was occupied by the respondent No.1 who was the legal heir of the tenant Smt. Naraini Devi. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on the pleadings of the parties and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not interfere with these concurrent findings of facts. There may not be reappraisal of the facts and evidence and as such no interference is required by this Court. Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava has led the Court through various documents filed by Smt. Phool Mati Devi before the Courts below, in support of his submissions.

In the rejoinder, Sri M.S. Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated his earlier submissions. He has further submitted that if Smt. Phool Mati Devi was adopted by the tenant late Sri Naraini Devi in the year 1954, then why a Will was executed by heron 20.4.1978; it was not at all required. According to Sri Kotwal, viewing from all angles, Smt. Phool Mati Devi was neither a member of the family of late Smt. Naraini Devi, nor was she her legal heir for the purposes of Rent Control Laws.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

It is evident from record that the house in question was earlier let out by its original landlord to one Nanhu Bhujwa. After his death, the tenancy rights devolved on his surviving wife Smt. Naraini Devi. The petitioner had purchased this house for his personal use and occupation through a registered sale deed executed on 24.2.1969. At the time of change of ownership, Smt. Naraini Devi, widow of Nanhu Bhujwa was in possession of the house as its tenant. Smt. Naraini Devi also died on 24.3.1979. It is admitted to the parties that Nanhu Bhujwa and his wife Smt. Naraini Devi had no issues of their own. The petitioner landlord immediately within one month of the death of Smt. Naraini Devi on 24.3.1979 filed an application under Section 16 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. He had failed in his first attempt to seek release of the premises under Section 21 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 when the tenant Smt. Naraini Devi was alive. Then the Courts below dealing with the matter visavis the petitioner landlord and the tenant (Smt. Naraini Devi) had held that the landlord''s need was not bona fide and genuine in comparison to the tenant, who was an issueless widow, sustaining herself by running a parcher''s oven (BHAR) and roasting foodgrains. Now, this Court has to see the situation which emerged after the death of this tenant (Smt. Naraini Devi) on 24.3.1979. The Rent Control Officer had declared the vacancy on 5.1.1981. The petitioner landlord having no house in the city of Lucknow, carrying on his business of selling Khutiya (Rewri) from a nearby rented shop in Daliganj area of the city of Lucknow, had sought release of his house. Admittedly, he had a wife, mother and four children, a family of six members, which needed a residential accommodation. It has been admitted to the parties that the premises in dispute was used for residential purposes where traditional family vocation of running a parcher''s oven (BHAR) was being carried out from a small portion of outer room. Admittedly, as per additional pleas taken in the written statement of the respondent No.1 filed before the Rent Control Authority, the accommodation included an outer room measuring 11.6 ft. x 6 ft. a small portion of which was used for roasting foodgrains having a parcher''s oven (BHAR), two rooms, each measuring 11.6 ft. x 10.6 ft., one 500 sqr. ft. courtyarde measuring 11.6 ft. x 49 ft., two latrines and other facilities. This accommodation was rented out at a meager rent of Rs.15A per month, which is ''no rent'' in the eye of law considering the total covered area measuring more than 1000 sqr. ft. Both the pa, have admitted that the house in question is situate in the main market of Daliganj area of the city of Lucknow. From the description of the premises, it is clear that it was mainly a residential accommodation. Traditionally, members of society who are running parcher''s oven (BHAR) put such oven in their houses. The landlord wanted to live in his own house alongwith his family. At the time of filing of the release application and thereafter he was carrying on with his occupation from a rented shop and had no other accommodation in the city of Lucknow.

For the purposes of adjudication of this case, the report of Rent Control Inspector prepared in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act XDIII of 1972 is very relevant. This is a valid piece of evidence under the Rent Laws. The contents of this report have not been properly considered and appreciated by the Courts below while arriving at their conclusions. This report was not contested by the respondent No.1 during release proceedings although written statement was filed on 5.1 .1 980. It would be relevant to quote this report here, as follows:

The above report was submitted by the Senior Rent Control Inspector on 2.6.1979. It reveals that the tenant Smt. Naraini Devi had died on 24.3.1979. After her death, Smt. Phool Mati Devi, resident of village Gauri, ahead of Sainik School, Lucknow had illegally, unauthorisedly occupied the premises and was carrying on the work of BARBHUJA (roasting of foodgrains for the last two months and was residing in the said premises. The Rent Control Inspector had reported that there was vacancy as per Section 12 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972.

After the spot inspection and taking statements of neighbours and completing necessary formalities as provided under the relevant rules, the abovequoted report was submitted by the Senior Rent Control Inspector to the Prescribed Authority on 2.6.1979. A perusal of Rule 8(2) of the Rules framed under the UP. Act XIII of 1972 would show that the report of the Rent Control Inspector is a valid piece of evidence and both, the landlord and the tenant, have right to file objection against it. After deciding such objection, the vacancy is notified. After this step, under proviso to subsection (1) of Section 16 of the UP. Act XIII of 1972, the District Magistrate is further enquired to give an opportunity to the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, to show that there is no vacancy as contemplated under subsection (4) of Section 12 of the Act. Any such person aggrieved against the final order under Section 16(1) of the said Act is entitled to file a revision under Section 18 before the District Judge, who is empowered to deal with such revision and the order declaring a vacancy can be reversed.

Sri M.S. Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Achal Mishra v. Ram Shankar Singh and others, as reported in 2001 (19) LCD 567. Through this decision, the Apex Court has held that its earlier decision in Ganpat Rai''s case (1985) 2 SCC 307 is incorrect. It has also been held that the question of vacancy can be challenged in revision under Section 18 of the UP. Act XIII of 1972. Sri R.K. Kunwar, Additional District Magistrate I, Rent Control, while declaring the vacancy had taken into account the report of Senior Rent Control Inspector submitted on 2.6.1979 and the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 on 5.1.1980 as also the affidavits, etc. filed by the parties. He had appreciated the contents of the said report and other material to arrive at a conclusion that the tenant Smt. Naraini Devi had died issueless on 24.3.1979 and after herdeath, Smt. Phool Mati Devi, wife of Shri Ram, daughter of Udai, resident of village Gauri, ahead of Sainik School, Lucknow had illegally, unauthorisedly occupied the premises. After illegally occupying the premises, Smt. Phool Mati Devi had been running a parcher''s oven (BHAR) roasting foodgrains. The petitioner has stated in his affidavit and the Senior Rent Control Inspector had also reported that Smt. Phool Mati Devi was carrying on this activity for the last two months of Smt. Naraini Devi''s death and was residing in the same premises. In view of these materials, the Prescribed Authority, Additional District Magistrate I, Rent Control had decided the question of vacancy and declared the premises as vacant after the death of its tenant Smt. Naraini Devi as per provisions of Section 12 of the UP. Act XIII of 1972. The order passed by the said authority has been quoted in the foregoing paras. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was a just, legal and appropriate order. In fact, the respondent No.1 had failed to demonstrate before the Rent Control authorities as to how and under what legal authority she had entered the premises after the death of Smt. Naraini Devi. She being a niece (daughter of Smt. Naraini Devi''s brother) was not a member of the family as defined under Section 3(g) of the UP. Act 13 of 1972. The Additional District Magistrate in his order dated 5.1.1981 has rightly held that on the basis of Will, the tenancy cannot devolve on the niece of a deceased tenant. For claiming some rights, a landlord or a tenant has to be a member of the family as defined under Section 3 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. There are several decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and this Court to the effect that even a real brother, brotherinlaw or brother''s daughter is not a member of the family of the tenant. (Vide 1995 (1) ARC 220, Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and others: 2004(2) AWC 1020 (LB) Kailash Nath Chaturvedi v. Additional District Judge (Court No.12), Lucknow and others; 2004 (5) AWC 4137, Smt. Ram Kunwar and others v. llnd Additional District Judge. Banda and others and Writ Petition No. 170 of 2003 (R/C), Narendra Singh v. Surendra Nath Pinger (dead) represented by his legal heirs, decided on 26.4.2006). In 1980 (6) ALR 589, Devendra Kumar v. Third Addl. District Judge, Meerut and others, this Court has held that only natural heirs of deceased tenant could succeed to tenancy rights and testamentary heirs or legatee under a Will executed by deceased tenant are not included in definition of "heirs" under Section 3(a) (2) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. I thus find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the tenancy cannot be transferred on the basis of Will.

The Prescribed Authority while passing the order declaring the vacancy on 5.1.1981 had rightly observed that if the tenant Smt. Phool Mati Devi was having adoption deed, said to be executed in the year 1954 in her favour, then what was the necessity to execute a Will and why the same was executed in her favour in the year 1978 it is also noteworthy that only a Photostat copy of the said Will was produced before the Prescribed Authority, which was inadmissible in evidence.

Even if there are concurrent findings of facts, this Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if it finds that grave illegality has been committed by the Courts below and findings are erroneous in law. There are several decisions of this Court on this point. In a similar situation, in the case of G.C. Kapoor v. N.K. Bhasin, AIR 2002 SC 200:2001 SCFBRC 541, the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India reversed all the three judgments, passed by Prescribed Authority, appellate Court and High Court and outrightly allowed the release application.

It is relevant to mention here that it is not a case of the respondent No.1 Smt. Phool Mati Devi that she had approached the concerned Rent Control Officer, District Magistrate, Lucknow seeking a formal order of allotment of the house in question in her favour. As per record, she did not have any formal allotment order issued by the District Magistrate to live in the disputed house as a tenant. The Rent Control Laws forbid a person to live in a vacant house without having a proper allotment order. In the circumstances, the respondent No.1 Smt. Phool Mati Devi can be defined as ''housegrabber''. This Court in Smt. Chetana Auna Govil v. R.C.E.O.. 1995 (26) ALR 114 and Saniai Singh v. State of U.P.. 2000(3) AWC 2260:2001 (43) ACC 342, has condemned such practice of housegrabbing. The respondent No.1 is a trespasser and has successfully prevented any action being taken against her by the competent authorities. This is a case of abuse of the process of Court as held in the Apex Court in Bhagwan Das Sood v. State of U.P., (1997) 1 SCC227. The respondent No.1 had or has no legal right at all to occupy the premises in question. This Court has dealt with similar matters relying on a Full Bench Decision of this Court in Nutan Kumar and others v. IInd Additional District Judge and others, 1993 (2) ARC 204, affirmed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court, in which it has been held that a person occupying premises without any allotment order shall be deemed to be an unauthorized occupant and his position is that of a trespasser. In Reeta Chauhan (Smt.) v. Virendra Govind Upadhya, 2004 (2) Allahabad Rent Cases 14, this Court had relied on a Supreme Court decision in Nanak Ram v. Kundal Rai. (1986) 3 SCC 83, while giving its conclusion. The respondent No.1 has failed to show any semblance of title or lessee right or any other kind of right. She forcibly and illegally entered into the possession of the premises. A lot of cases of housegrabbing have been coming to the notice of this Court and this Court has consistently deprecated this practice as it is against the rule of law. If illegal housegrabbing is permitted the Rule of Law and civilized society will totally collapse. The law is wellsettled that an unauthorized occupant or a landgrabber should be dealt with sternly, vide judgment of this Court as reported in 2004 (2) ARC 570, Sudhakar Singh v. Aimal Husain and others. Hence, the Court must take a strong stand in such matters. An unauthorized occupant cannot challenge the release of the premises, vide catena of decisions rendered by this Court as reported in 2002 (1)ARC 551, Kandhaiya Lal v. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer and others; 2001 (2) ARC 135, Yoothika Bhadoria (Smt.) v. Upper Nagar Magistrate (WP.A. R.C.E.O.. Kanpur Nagar and others: 2005 (1) AWC170, Harish Chandra Agrawal (D) through L.Rs. v. IIIrd A.D.J., Agra and another and 2002 (2) ARC 702, Satya Narain v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar and others.

Thus it can be safely held that Smt. Phool Mati Devi, respondent No.1 was not a tenant of the house in dispute. She was an unauthorized and illegal occupant who had entered the house in question after the death of Smt. Naraini Devi. Her version was found to be fabricated, concocted and unbelievable by the Additional District Magistrate I, Rent Control on 5.1.1981. Subsequently appointed Prescribed Authority, a delegate of the District Magistrate holding a post lower than the post of Additional District Magistrate, had .unnecessarily interfered with the order declaring vacancy passed earlier on 5.1.1981. What was to be dealt with by the Additional City Magistrate was the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate on 24.4.1981 allowing opportunity to respondent No.1 Phool Mati Devi to raise her objections before the District Magistrate or any other competent authority. The vacancy in the premises had already been formally declared on 5.1.1981. There was no justification to review this order and pass a fresh order rejecting the application for release submitted by the landlord who had been waiting to live in his own house since 24.2.1969 when he had purchased the house or from 24.3.1979, the date when the bona fide tenenat Smt. Naraini Devi had died leaving behind no heirs, family members in the premises in question.

It is also noteworthy that the Additional City Magistrate had illegally reviewed and recalled the order declaring vacancy passed by his predecessor Additional District Magistrate I, Rent Control without any admissible evidence. The said authority had laid much emphasis in its order dated 26.9.1983 on the Will said to be executed in the year 1997 for concluding that Smt. Phool Mati Devi had inherited the tenancy on the basis of said Will. This finding is against the settled principles of law and under the scheme of the relevant Rent Control Laws, U.P. Act XIII of 1972, the learned Additional City Magistrate ought to have gone through and considered the report dated 2.6.1979 submitted by the Rent Control Inspector. The Additional City Magistrate failed to appreciate Rule 8(2) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 which provides that the report of the Rent Control Inspector is a valid piece of evidence and both, the landlord and the tenant, has right to file objection agsinst it. The Additional City Magistrate ought to have recorded reasons for ignoring this report of Senior Rent Control Inspector which was prepared after making spot inspection and recording statements of witnesses at the spot. Smt. Phool Mati Devi, respondent No.1 failed to demolish the said report of Senior Rent Control Inspector in the Courts below. The Additional City Magistrate was misled by an inadmissible evidence, Photostat copy of the Will, which was allegedly executed by Smt. Naraini Devi. From the impugned order dated 26.9.1983, it is evident that the Additional City Magistrate had ignored to look into the provisions of Sections 3(a) and 3(g) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 in which the terms ''tenant'' and ''family'' have been defined. The revisional Court has also committed the same error; it was required to go through these statutory provisions, but it failed.

Both the Courts below have failed to record the finding as to whether the premises in dispute was residential or nonresidential. From the record and the pleadings of the parties, however, it is amply clear that most of the part of the premises in question was being used for residential purposes and only a small portion of outer room of the said house was used for running a parcher''s oven (BHAR). It has come on record that Smt. Phool Mati Devi, respondent No.1 was also residing in the house in question using the entire accommodation and availing all the facilities provided in it.

This Court has further found that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate as to how and when Smt. Phool Mati Devi, respondent No1, was declared ''tenant'' as per provisions of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 by the competent authority, Rent Control Officer, District Magistrate, Lucknow. They have not considered and appreciated the definition of the word ''tenant'' under Section 3(a) of the said Act. As per provisions of relevant rent laws, in the residential building after the death of original tenant, such only of his heirs as normally residing with him in the building at the time of his death can be deemed to be ''tenant'' in the disputed premises. The Additional City Magistrate has not even given specific finding on the point and failed to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the building was residential or nonresidential and whether Smt. Phool Mati Devi was in fact residing in the disputed premises at the time of death of Smt. Naraini Devi. Smt. Phool Mati Devi failed to discharge her burden before the Courts below by placing evidence to the effect that she was in fact residing in the premises in question at the time of death of Smt. Naraini Devi. The Senior Rent Control Inspector''s report dated 2.6.1979 has remained uncontroverted throughout. The Additional City Magistrate and the revisional Court were required under law to look into the said report of the Senior Rent Control Inspector and the statement of Smt. Phool Mati Devi made by heron oath in Case No.3022 of 1377 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by her against her husband Sri Shri Ram. She had stated before the Judicial Magistrate that she was married to Shri Ram and lived in her marital home for quite some time. A child was born to her out of their wedlock. She was not residing with late Smt. Naraini Devi, her BUA (father''s sister); she was simply working at Smt. Naraini Devi''s shop on daily wages. This statement was made on oath before a Court of law, a copy of which has been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit. It was also indicated before the said Court in the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that Smt. Phool Mati Devi was living with her parents (not with her BUA (aunt) Smt. Naraini Devi) who lived in village Saraiya, P.S. Banthara, Lucknow. There is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 was a married, undivorced lady and she was not residing with her BUA (aunt) Smt. Naraini Devi at the time of her death. This Court has also noted the fact that thestatement of Smt. Phool Mati Devi under Section 125 Cr.P.C was recorded earlier to the date of alleged Will executed by Smt. Naraini Devi.

It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that Smt. Phool Mati Devi''s father Udal was alive when Smt. Naraini Devi had died. After the death of Smt. Naraini Devi, sister, a brother i.e. Udal, father of Smt. Phool Mati Devi will come in the first category of heirs. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that one Nankau is the real brother of Smt. Phool Mati Devi and son of Smt. Naraini Devi''s brother. It is amazing as to how the Courts below have applied Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the facts and circumstances of the case to give priority to a daughter when her father Udal, brother of deceased tenant Smt. Naraini Devi was alive. Interestingly, the daughter of original tenant Nanhu Bhujwa''s brother, who was living nearby, had not come forward to claim tenancy in the house in dispute. Even considering this matter in the light of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the claim of tenancy put forth by respondent No.1 Smt. Phool Mati Devi, when her own father and brother were alive, appears to be without basis, unfounded.

The learned revisional Court, Special Judge has also recorded a finding contrary to law by holding that the revision does not lie against the order declaring vacancy because the finding on the question of vacancy is not a jurisdictional fact. The revisional Court while deciding the question of normal residence of Smt. Phool Mati Devi in the house in question at the time of death of Smt. Naraini Devi has excluded from consideration the material evidence, the report of the Senior Rent Control Inspector, who after making spot inspection, verifying from the witnesses of the locality had reported that Smt. Phool Mati Devi was residing in the.disputed premises for the last two months i.e. for a few days after the death of Smt. Naraini Devi on 24.3.1979. As indicated in the above paras, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the question of vacancy can be challenged in revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. In view of this, the finding of the revisional Court is erroneous, rather perverse as it held that the question of vacancy not being a jurisdictional fact, was not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. This Court is also of the view that in the light of settled legal position, decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, the question of vacancy was to be looked into by the revisional Court, which has not been done in the present case.

The revisional Court has also wrongly held that Smt. Phool Mati Devi was a legal heir of Smt. Naraini Devi under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and she had inherited the vacancy as she was residing with Smt. Naraini Devi at the time of her death. The revisional Court has merely affirmed the finding of Additional City Magistrate on this point without applying its own mind and delving into the legal provisions i.e. definitions of the terms ''tenant'' and ''family'' as provided under the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The material piece of evidence i.e. the report of Senior Rent Control Inspector was not considered and appreciated. This report ought not to have been excluded from consideration by the revisional Court at the time of deciding the question of vacancy under Section 12 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972.

So far as the question of comparative hardship is concerned, I further find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that even applying the principles of law as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported in AIR 2003 SC 2713: 2005 (2) ARC 899, B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada and recent decisions of this Court as reported in 2005 (1) ARC 394, Jogendra Singh Bajaj (Dr.) and others v. IVth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and another and 2006 (1) ARC 93, Braham Kumar and others v. Raja Ram and others, the respondent No.1 Smt. Phool Mati Devi, despite the submission of application for release by the landlord on 21.4.1979, i.e. about 37 years ago, did not make any effort to search for alternative accommodation. The failure of the respondent No.1 to search an alternative accommodation is sufficient to decide the question of hardship against her.

It has also come on record that the petitioner landlord was also bonafidely requiring the premises in question for expanding his business. In (2005) 8 SCC 252, Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd, v. Vimalabai Probhulal and others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is always the prerogative of the landlord to .decide for what purpose he requires premises in question. In (2005) 8 SCC 504, Rakesh Vij v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi and others (ThreeJudge Bench case), the Apex Court has held that in view of bona fide requirement of landlord, it would be highly unjust and inequitable to completely deprive a landlord of his right to seek eviction of a tenant from a building on ground of his own use, for all times to come.

From the above discussion, it is apparent that both the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are wholly erroneous, perverse and contrary to law. The vacancy in the premises had already been declared by order dated 5.1.1981 passed on the basis of material on record, legal evidence, which ought not to have been recalled by the successor of the authority of Rent Control who had passed the order on 26.9.1983. Normally in such cases, the parties request the Court to remand the matter to the trial Court for reconsideration. In the present case, the release application was submitted on 21.4.1979. The matter then remained pending disposal in the Courts for a long time. This writ petition was filed in the year 1984 and it is pending disposal in this Court since then. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has held in 2004 (10 ARC 137:2004 ACJ 304 (SC), R.E.V. Gounder v. V.V.P. Temple and 2002 (2) ARC 298 (Supreme Court), R.C. Kesharwani v. Dwarika Prasad, that when the matter is pending for long time, remand of the case must be avoided. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in its authority reported in Snail v. Manoi Kumar, 2004 ACJ 1213, placing reliance upon Surva Dey Rai v. R.C. Rai. 2003 (6) SCC 675: 2003 (2) ARC 385, has held that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, High Court has the jurisdiction also to pass itself such a decision or direction as the inferior Court or tribunal should have made. This Court has already dealt with all aspects of the matter. The landlord had purchased the property in the year 1969. The litigation was initiated in April, 1979 when the release application under Section 16 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 was filed. This writ petition is pending disposal in this Court for more than 22 years. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has become old and infirm, waiting for final outcome of the litigation and pining for living in his own house with a family of at least six members. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to remand the case to the Courts below, including the Prescribed Authority for reconsideration of the release application. This Court is strengthened in arriving at its conclusion on the basis of the case laws as referred to above and the recent judgment of this Court as reported in 2006 (1) ARC 65, Hasmat Ali v. VIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others.

For reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.1 Smt. Phool Mati Devi, wife Sri Shri Ram, daughter of Udal, resident of village Gauri, ahead of Sainik School is a trespasser, housegrabber entering into the house in dispute unauthorisedly and illegally without having any formal order of allotment issued by the competent Rent Control Officer, District Magistrate, Lucknow. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that she had not paid any damages (or even rent) to the petitioner landlord since the date she unauthorisedly and illegally entered the premises after the death of Smt. Naraini Devi. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court as to how, when and in what manner the rent was ever offered or paid to the petitioner even after treating him as landlord throughout the litigation. No efforts were ever made to offer rent to the landlord. Smt. Phool Mati Devi has not placed any material on record to establish her bona fides. She had been occupying and using the premises for the last more than 27 years. She has herself admitted on affidavit that she is running a duly registered shop under the Shop and Commercial Establishment Act. It is presumed that she could afford to pay rent to the landlord as her BUA (aunt) Smt. Naraini Devi was doing till her death. The accommodation consists of three rooms, having a total covered area measuring more than 1000 sqr. ft and an open courtyard of about 500 sqr. ft.; it situates in the main market of Daliganj in the city of Lucknow. Learned counsel for the petitioner has indicated to the Court that this accommodation shall not be available on rent for less than Rs.1000/ per month. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, therefore, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay appropriate and reasonable damages to the petitioner landlord for use and occupation of the premises in question.

In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 26.9.1983 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Rent Control), Lucknow and the judgment and order dated 13.3.1984 passed by the revisional Court, contained respectively in Annexures 16 and 18 to the writ petition are quashed.

This Court further holds that vacancy in the premises had occurred when the tenant Smt. Naraini Devi had died and formal order declaring the vacancy was properly, validly issued by the Additional District Magistrate I, Rent Control on 5.1.1981. Therefore, the order dated 5.1.1981 declaring vacancy in the house in question passed by the Additional District Magistrate I, Rent Control, Lucknow shall stand revived forthwith.

The respondent No.1 Smt. Phool Mati Devi shall vacate the premises in question and hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to the petitioner landlord within one month from today. An affidavit of compliance of this Court''s order shall be filed before the Registrar of this Court.

The respondent No.1 Smt. Phool Mati Devi is further directed to pay Rs.One lac to the petitioner landlord as damages for use and occupation of the premises in question, which has been held by this Court as illegal and unauthorized, within six months from today, failing which it shall be openforthe petitioner landlord to take appropriate legal action against her for recovery of the said amount.

This judgment and order has been delivered in the presence of learned counsel for the parties.

(Petition allowed)