AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In short the facts of the case are that the petitioner landlord moved an application u/s 12 read with Section 16(1)(b) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It appears from the record that on 4.3.1999 an application was moved by the respondent No. 3 tenant that since the landlord accepts him as a tenant, therefore, the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide proceedings u/s 12/16 of Act No. 13 of 1972.
The trial court vide order dated 14.7.1999, rejected the application dated 4.3.1999 holding that he does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceedings, which was challenged before the revisional court. The respondent tenant challenged the aforesaid order vide Revision Application No. 83 of 1999 u/s 18 of the Act. The Vth Additional District Judge, Bijnor, vide Impugned order dated 18.10.2000 allowed the revision filed by respondent No, 3 against order dated 14.7.1999 of the trial court, aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the same in this petition.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties it appears that the petitioner is said to have given the shop in dispute to respondent No. 3 for a period of three months without any allotment. The Rent Control Inspector submitted a report dated 25.4.1998 that the shop in dispute comes within the preview of the Act No. 13 of 1972 as such the allotment order was necessary.
It is settled law that no person can acquire the status of a tenant without there being a lawful and valid allotment order in his favour. The application moved by respondent No. 3 on 4.3.1999 that since the landlord accepts him as a tenant, therefore the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceeding Under Act No. 13 of 1972 was rightly rejected.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed, remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the question of vacancy and pass an appropriate reasoned order in apcordance with law within a period of three months from today with independent mind and without being influenced by the court below.
Either of the party is at liberty to move an application before the authority concerned within a period of 10 days from today for compliance of this order.