Ram Awadh vs City Magistrate/Rent Control Officer, Jaunpur and others

S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.4.2003 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Jaunpur in the case of Kailash Nath v. Ram Awadh. Through the said order accommodation in dispute which is a shop has been released in favour of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who purchased the shop in dispute in the year 1998 from previous owner landlord. The petitioner is tenant since much before 1998.

Not a single word has been said in the impugned order regarding vacancy. Release under section 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is possible if there is vacancy. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that in pursuance of some order of this Court passed in another proceeding (Writ Petition No. 3291 of 1984) rent has not been regularly paid. Even if no rent is paid for several years still it does not give rise to vacancy. There is a serious dispute between the learned Counsel for the parties regarding the payment of rent. In these proceedings there is no occasion to decide as to whether rent has been paid or not. Non payment of rent does not amount to vacancy. There is absolutely nothing in the impugned order which may indicate vacancy.

Learned Counsel for contesting respondents new landlords has also no been able to show any thing which may give rise vacancy. Even if the petitioner has got some house it will not give rise to vacancy as accommodation in dispute is shop i.e. commercial in nature.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. However, this fact cannot be ignored that the rent of Rs. 50/ per month for a shop is highly in adequate. On the suggestion of the Court learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued to pay rent @ Rs. 250/ per month with effect from July, 2008 on ward. Let the said rent be paid in future regularly.

It is further that in case rent at the old rate has not been paid till June, 2008 then the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are at complete liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the said amount.