Girish Narain Tiwari vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Sudhir Narain, J.—The Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 18th July 1995, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad, rejecting the application of the Petitioner for allotment on the ground that there was no vacancy of the premises in question.

The Petitioner applied for allotment of premises No. 2B, Church Lane. Allahabad. A report was called from the Rent Control Inspector and the notice was also sent to the landlady, Respondent No. 3. The landlady filed an objection stating that the accommodation in question is not vacant. Sri Amit Philips is her nephew and lives with her. The landlady is unmarried and she called her nephew to look after and assist her particularly in her old age. She also got her nephew engaged in Premier Trade Link and permitted to put a signboard on the outer wall of the premises in question. The landlady is about 68 years old.

The contention of the Petitioner was that nephew is not a member of the family as defined u/s 3 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') and the landlady had permitted her nephew to live in the house and, therefore, it shall be deemed to be vacant as contemplated u/s 12(1) of the Act. The contention of the Petitioner was not accepted and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer recorded a finding that the landlady had not given exclusive possession but she has permitted her nephew to live with her and assist her in her old age. She is unmarried and normally remains ill. On this finding, the application was rejected. This order has been challenged in this writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that it was admitted by the landlady that she has permitted her nephew Sri Amit Philips to live in the premises in question and has also permitted him to put signboard in the name of Premier Trade Link and, as such, the accommodation should be treated as vacant. It is contended that if any person has permitted a person who is not member of his family to live in the premises In question, it will be treated as a licence and such licence can only be given following the procedure as provided u/s 2A of the Act which provides that the licence can be given for purely temporary residential accommodation for a period not exceeding three months without any allotment order u/s 16 and further intimation shall be given generally by the licensor and the licensee to the District Magistrate within one month from the date of occupation of the building or part by the licensee. He has also placed reliance upon the decisions Ram Saran Sodhi v.I Vth Addl. District Judge, Agra and Ors. 1982 ARC (2) 342; Brij Mohan Chaturvedi v. 1Oth A.D.J. Allahabad and others 1977 ARC 417 ; Mumtaz Alxmad v. District Judge, Kanpur and Ors. 1977 ARC 431. In these cases, the view taken was that If the possession Is given to a person who is not a member of the family as defined u/s 3 of the Act, the accommodation shall be deemed as vacant u/s 12(1) of the Act. In the present case, the possession has not been exclusively given to the nephew of the landlady, Respondent No. 3. The case of the landlady is that she is unmarried and aged about 86 years. She has permitted her nephew to live with her and assist her in her old age. It is not a case where exclusive possession has been given to a person who is not a member of her family.

In view of the above, there is no merit In this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.