Uma Shanker Bhargava vs B.C.and E.O.,Varanasi and Others

B.K. Rathi, J.—By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 20598 (Annexure1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi and for issue of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 not to proceed with the hearing of Case No. 48 of 1995, Dilip Kumar v. Geeta Devi and others, pending before him.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record have been perused.

The Opp. Party No. 4 moved an application for allotment of house No. C2/94 Hunkar Tola, Varanasi, before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The necessary enquiry was got conducted and it was found that the house was let out to the petitioner for some time and he is living in the same and he is in occupation of the same as unauthorised occupant since 1982. The petitioner alleged. that he is living as tenant from 1980 and depositing the rent regularity in the Court. He alleged that the house was given to him on rent by the Landlady respondent No. 2 of which a Rent Deed was executed on 161282 by Smt. Geeta JDevi Landlady, respondent No. 3 and the premises was given for six months. He'' further pleaded that the premises was constructed in 1976 and therefore, at that time, the Rent Control Act was not applicable and there was no necessarily for allotment.

Learned Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that ground floor was constructed on 1467 and first floor in the year 1976 and the first assessment was made in 1967. He, therefore, held that occupation Of the petitioner being without allotment isunauthorised and, therefore, he declared; the premises as vacant. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present petition hasbeen preferred.

The contention of the learned counsel for j the petitioner is that the assessment has been filed for the year 1976 which shows that first floor was newly constructed in the year 1976 and therefore, the Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply and it is therefore, contended that the petitioner is not an unauthorised occupant. It is further contended that in the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has pleaded that the suit was filed by the landladyrespondent No. 3 against the petitioner in the Court of J.S.C.C., Vandranasi in which the petitioner has been Alleged to be a tenant and his eviction was sought. The suit has been decreed with a finding that the petitioner after the expiry of the period of lease has become a tenant at will for his tenancy has been terminated. It is also argued that the revision filed against it is also pending.

6.1 have considered the contentions. The assessment for the year 1976 prima facie shows that the first floor was constructed in the year 1976 and therefore, the Rent Control Act does not apply. The landlady respondent No. 3 filed a suit eviction against the petitioner alleging him to be the tenant whose tenancy has been terminated. That suit has also been decreed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be unauthorised occupant and the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 20598 Annexure1 of this petition is liable to be set aside.

The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order Annexure1 of the writ petition passed by respondent No. 1 is set aside. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 shall not proceed with Case No. 48/95, Dilip Kumar v. Geeta Devi, pending before him. Petition allowed.