Full Judgment
S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 18th February, 1991 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).
2. The dispute relates to an accommodation on the first floor of House No. 12/69. Chowk Bundu Khan, Tantanpara. Aligarh.
3. The said accommodation has, hereinafter, been referred to as 'the disputed accommodation.'
4. It appears that Kumari Shamim Begum (respondent No. 2 herein) moved an application under Section 12 read with Section 16 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act'), inter alia, praying for declaration of vacancy in respect of the disputed accommodation, and further, for release of the disputed accommodation in her (Kumari Shamim Begum's) favour. The declaration of vacancy was sought on the ground that Siraj Ahmad (petitioner herein) was In unauthorized occupation of the disputed accommodation.
5. It appears that the Rent Control Inspector submitted his report dated 13.11.1990.
6. It further appears that notices were issued to the concerned parties.
7. By the said order dated 18th February, 1991, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh (respondent No. 1) declared vacancy in respect of the disputed accommodation.
8. It was, inter alia, held by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh (respondent No. 1) that as per the report of the Rent Control Inspector as also the averments made in the application of the respondent No. 2 (landlady), the petitioner had been tenant for the last 5 years.
9. It was inter alia, further held that as the petitioner had been residing in the disputed accommodation since after July, 1976 without any allotment order, his occupation in disputed accommodation would be deemed to be unauthorized, and as such, there would be vacancy in the disputed accommodation.
10. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the aforementioned writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
11. By the order dated 7th July, 2004, the office was directed to issue notice to the petitioner to engage another counsel as the learned advocate, who had been appearing as the learned Counsel for the petitioner, had since been elevated to the Bench of this Court.
12. It further appears that pursuant to the order dated 7th July, 2004, notice was issued to the petitioner by Registered Post A.D., fixing 20th September, 2004.
13. The case was listed before the Court on 20th September, 2004 with the office report dated 18th September, 2004.
14. The said office report dated 18th September, 2004 is quoted below:
N.E.C. (Petitioner)
N.E.C. neither A. D. nor undelivered cover has been received back after service as yet. No one has put in appearance on behalf of petitioner as yet.
Put up for admission.
15. In view of the said office report, the Court, by its order dated 20th September, 2004, directed the office to await service of notice.
16. The Court further directed that the case would be listed in the week commencing from 22nd November, 2004.
17. The said order dated 20th September, 2004 is quoted below:
Await service of notice stated to have been issued to the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 7.7.2004.
List in the week commencing 22.11.2004.
18. It further appears that the case was. thereafter, put up before the Court with Office report dated 20th November, 2004 to the following effect:
In view of Court's order dated 20.9.2004, it is submitted that the N.E.C. notice not returned since yet, office copy of N.E.C. attached herewith.
Put up for orders admission.
19. On 3rd March, 2006, the Court considered the said office reports dated 18.9.2004 and 20th November, 2004, and held service of notice on the petitioner to be sufficient.
20. The Court further directed the office to submit report as to whether any learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
21. The said order dated 3rd March, 2006 is as follows:
Perused the office reports dated 18.9.2004 and 20.11.2004 in regard to service of notice, stated to have been issued to the petitioner to engage another counsel, pursuant to the order dated 7.7.2004.
In view of the said office reports, service of notice on the petitioner is held to be sufficient.
Office Is directed to submit report as to whether any learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
List on 10.3.2006.
22. Pursuant to the said order dated 3rd March, 2006, the office has submitted its report dated 9th March, 2006, which is reproduced below:
In compliance with Hon'ble Court's order dated 3.3.2006.
It is submitted that no one has put in appearance on behalf of petitioner as yet.
Now the case is put up before the Hon'ble Court for orders/admission.
23. A perusal of the office report, quoted above, shows that despite sufficient service of notice on the petitioner, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
24. In the circumstances, the Court is proceeding to pass appropriate orders In the matter.
25. I have perused the record of the case.
26. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 18th February, 1991, It is evident that notices were issued to the concerned parties including the petitioner.
27. It is further evident from a perusal of the impugned order that repeated efforts were made to serve the notice on the petitioner but the petitioner was not available, and the brother of the petitioner, after reading the notice, declined to accept the same.
28. It is further evident from a perusal of the impugned order that the petitioner came in occupation of the disputed accommodation after July 1976 without any allotment order.
29. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has himself stated that he is residing in the disputed accommodation as tenant since 1985.
30. Section 14 of the Act provides as follows:
14. Regulartzation of occupation of existing tenants.-(Not with standing anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licensee (within the meaning of Section 2A) or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)(Amendment) Act, 1976, not being a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before any Court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such building).
31. Therefore, for being entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act, a person must be in occupation of a building as a tenant or as a licensee with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction)(Amendment) Act, 1976, i.e., immediately before 5th July, 1976.
32. As per the findings recorded in the impugned order dated 18th February 1991, the petitioner came in occupation of the disputed accommodation after July, 1976.
33. Further, the petitioner has himself stated that he is in occupation of the disputed accommodation since 1985.
34. It is further evident that the petitioner has no allotment order in his favour. As such, the occupation of the petitioner is unauthorized in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, which provides as follows:
13. Restrictions on occupation of building without allotment or release.-Where a landlord or tenant ceases to occupy a building or part thereof, no person shall occupy it in any capacity on his behalf, or otherwise than under an order of allotment or release under Section 16, and if a person so purports to occupy it, he shall, without prejudice to the provisions of Section 31, be deemed to be an unauthorized occupant of such building or part.
35. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid writ petition lacks merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
36. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
37. The interim order granted in this case stands vacated.