Savitri (Smt.) and Another vs Rent Control and Eviction Officer and Another

Anjani Kumar, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18th March, 1998, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed that there is a deemed vacancy and Rajendra, respondent, is an un-authorised occupant, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer therefore, by order dated 18th March 1998 declared that the accommodation in question shall be deemed to be vacant and the matter was directed to come up on 15th April 1998 for consideration of release of the accommodation on the application of the landlord.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, that there is a vacancy, suffers from manifest error of law inasmuch as that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not considered the evidence on the record in the correct perspective and the view taken by the authority in declaring the vacancy has erroneously failed to consider that Savitri, who is married daughter of Kabul Singh, was in fact residing with her father Kabool Singh before the death of Kabool Singh. Therefore, Savitri is a person who was normally residing with the tenant and therefore, after the death of Kabool Singh she is entitled to inherit the tenancy. It is further submitted that since the application is filed impleading only Rajendra as opposite party and it is admitted fact that Savitri is in occupation of the accommodation in question, the applicable is liable to be dismissed. A perusal of Section 12 clearly demonstrates that if the conditions prescribed therein are in existence it is presumed that there is a deemed vacancy. The phrase deemed vacancy pre-supposes all the person in occupation are in un-authorised occupation.

In the present case the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that Savitri was not entitled to inherit the tenancy after Kabul Singh and Rajendra not being tenant is also held to be in unauthorised occupant. In this view of the matter the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that there is vacancy does not suffer from any illegally. This Court by its order dated 9th April 1998 directed that proceedings in pursuance of the order dated 18th March 1998 may go on, however, final order of release or allotment shall not be given effect to until further orders. Pursuant to the aforesaid order proceedings of release culminated in release of the accommodation in question and the petitioners, therefore, amended the writ petition seeking quashing of release order also.

Since I have held that the order declaring vacancy do not warrant interference the question of release being a matter exclusively between landlord and the authorities, in view of Full Bench decision reported in 1986 (1) ARC 1, Talib Hasan and Anr. v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital and Ors., the petitioners do not have any right to object to the release of the accommodation.

In this view of the matter this writ petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed. The intention order, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.