C.M.W.P. No. 2807 of 1988. Case: Phool Chand Khandelwal (Dead) Through L.Rs. Vs Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura and Others. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | C.M.W.P. No. 2807 of 1988 |
| Judges | Dilip Gupta, J. |
| Issue | Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (regulation of Letting, Rent &. Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 12, 16 |
| Citation | 2008 (71) ALR 46 |
| Judgement Date | February 28, 2008 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Dilip Gupta, J.
-
This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 24.12.1987 by which vacancy of the premises in dispute has been declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura under section 12 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). A Kotha bearing Municipal No. 996/34, Kishori Ramanganj, Mathura which is part of a big building complex was given on monthly rent of Rs. 10/- to the petitioner by Sri Thakur Kishori Ramanji Mahraj, respondent No. 3 in this petition. An application was filed by Rajesh Kumar, respondent No. 2 in this petition under section 16 of the Act for allotment of the premises on the ground that the tenant had removed his effects from the premises in dispute. The Rent Control Inspector made an inspection of the premises on 25.8.1985 and submitted his report mentioning therein that the tenant was in possession of the premises and articles were kept in the premises. Various affidavits were also filed by the parties. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer also inspected the premises on 30.7.1986 after giving notice to the Counsel for both the parties. In the inspection report dated 31.7.1988 submitted by him it has been mentioned that at the time of the inspection neither the tenant nor his Counsel was present and, therefore, it appeared that the tenant had removed his effects. An objection was filed by the tenant to the aforesaid inspection report mentioning therein that he had not received any information from the Court regarding the inspection and nor his Counsel had intimated him about any such inspection and that the inference drawn by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in his report dated 31.7.1986 that since the tenant or his Counsel was not present it must be presumed that the tenant had removed his effects, was not correct. It was further stated that the tenant had gone to the District Hospital in connection with the operation of his wife and that the inspection was in contravention of the provisions of Rule 8(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). He further asserted that he had not removed his effects from the premises in dispute. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 24.12.1987 declared vacancy under section 12 of the Act as he had kept the goods of Khandelwal Jan Sabha which was not a...
To continue reading
Request your trial