Mohammad Naseem v. District Judge, Almora

J.C Gupta, J.:— Sri Rajesh Tandon made a mention before this Court that Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 20825/97 and 20830/97 filed as fresh on 1st of July, 1997 may be taken up today as the matter is vary urgent because as per his instructions, Form-C has been issued against the petitioner in respect of the ground floor accommodation in question. Seeing the urgency the prayer is allowed.

2. Heard the petitioner's Counsel and perused the impugned order as well as the annexures annexed with the petition.

3. Both the writ petitions arise out of common order dated 7.6.1997 passed by the District Judge, Almora disposing of the two revisions filed before him, hence both the writ petitions have been taken up together.

4. The dispute relates to two seperate accommodations. One consisting of one room in the first floor and the other consisting of a room in the ground floor. The petitioner initiated proceedings by moving an application for allotment of the accommodation of the first floor which according to him had fallen vacant as a result of the death of the owner Sri Banne Mian. It was reported by the Inspector that owner had created a waqf of the entire property.

5. Sunni Central Waqf Board moved a release application in respect of the said accommodation. It was also reported by the Rent Control Inspector that the petitioner was in occupation of the ground floor accommodation. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated January 22, 1994 released the first floor accommodation in favour of the landlord, Uttar Pradesh Central Sunni Waqf Board, while in respect of the ground floor accommodation he observed that the petitioner would continue to occupy the ground floor accommodation. The petitioner as well as the landlord filed rent revisions before the District Judge. The petitioner challenged the order of release made in favour of the landlord in respect of the first floor accommodation while the landlord challenged the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer whereby the petitioner was allowed to continue his occupation in the ground floor accommodation. The Revisional Court allowed the revision filed by the landlord but dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner in respect of the release order made in favour of the landlord.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly conceded that in view of Full Bench decision of the Court in Talib Hasain v. Ist Additional District Judge, Nainital . 1986 12 ALR 113 FB., the petitioner who was a prospective allottee before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no right to file objections against the release application nor he possessed any right to file revision before the Revisional Court. He However argued that once revisional court had come to the conclusion that the provisions of the U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable on account of the amended Section 2(1)(bbb), the Revisional Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer made in respect of the ground floor accommodation whereby the possession of the petitioner was protected. It is well established law that R.C and E.O can exercise his powers for allotment or release under Section 16 only in case where the provisions of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. When the provisions of the Act were not applicable, the proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer were a nullity and any order passed in those proceedings was non-est. By way of this writ petitions, the petitioner before this Court has challenged the order of the revisional court whereby revision of the landlord has been allowed and the order made in favour of the petitioner in respect of the ground floor accommodation has been set aside and it has been prayed that the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in favour of the petitioner be restored. Once it is held that the proceedings initiated before the R.C and E.O were without jurisdiction null, and void, on account of non-applicability of the provisions of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972, the order passed in favour of the petitioner was itself a nullity and the same cannot be restored.

7. For the above reasons, both the writ petitions must fail. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is in actual occupation of the ground floor accommodation, he could be evicted only in accordance with law and not otherwise.

8. With the above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

9. A copy of this order be placed on the record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20830/1997.

10. Petition Dismissed.