Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3857 of 2017 Petitioner :- Chunno Respondent :- Dilip Kumar Singhal Counsel for Petitioner :- Chhaya Gupta,Sujeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A N Bhargava,Nirvikar Gupta,Vishnu Pandey
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Sri A N Bhargava alongwith with Sri Nirvikar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
Sri Nirvikar Gupta, has filed a fresh Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:
(I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.1.2017 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) passed by Upper District Judge, Court No.3, Mathura in Rent Control Revision No.8/2012 under Section 18 of Rent Control Act and the order dated 13.8.2012 (Annexure no.2 to the writ petition) passed by Rent Control Officer, Mathura in Case No.101/2008, 66/09, 65/10, 49/11 and 36/2012 (Dilip Kumar Sighal Vs. Smt. Chunno & others) under Section 13 of U.P. Rent Control Act.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing not to dispossess the petitioner from the shop in dispute in pursuance of the order dated 13.8.2012 and 19.1.2017.
Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the disputed shop being property no.278 C (old No.329 C), Gopalpura, Arya Samaj Road, Mathura, was purchased by the defendant-respondent from its erstwhile owner by a registered sale deed dated 27.2.1999 in which the name of the petitioner was mentioned as existing tenant. In case No.36 of 2012 (Dilip Kumar Singhal Vs. Smt. Chunno & others) the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura, declared the vacancy on the ground that the petitioner is an illegal occupant of the disputed shop and she is tenant since the year 1999. Thus, the benefit of Section 14 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 was denied. By the impugned order dated 13.8.2012 in case Nos.101/08, 66/09, 65/10, 49/11 and 36/2012 (Dilip Kumar Singhal Vs. Smt. Chunno & others) under U.P. Act 13 of 1972, the disputed shop was released on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord-respondent. Aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed the Rent Control Revision No.08 of 2012 (Chunno, daughter of Lala Manihar Vs. Dilip Kumar Singhal and another) which was dismissed by judgment dated 19.1.2017, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.03, Mathura.
Aggrieved with these orders the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional court as well as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer have committed manifest error of law and fact to ignore that the petitioner is the daughter of Lala Manihar who was inducted as tenant of the disputed shop by the erstwhile owner prior to the year 1951. The rent receipts of 1950 as well as the Nagar Palika House Tax Assessment list of the year 1951-57 were filed in evidence in which the name of Lal Manihar, the father of the petitioner is shown as tenant. In the assessment since 1993, the name of the petitioner is shown as tenant in the Nagar Palika. The registration obtained under the Shop and Establishment Act by the petitioner in the year 1976, was also not considered.
Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned orders and judgment.
I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition before me.
At the very outset this Court made the following queries from the learned counsel for the petitioners:
(a) When the original tenant Sri Lala Manihar died?
(b) When the petitioner Smt. Chunno was married ?
(c) The photo stat copy of the alleged duplicate copy of registration certificate under the Shop and Establishment Act bearing registration No.4547 shows the date of issuance of this certificate to be 3.10.1978 while the printed portion of the last paragraph of the alleged certificate bears the year 1998 and the endorsements for renewal are shown from 1.4.1976 onwards and the renewal for the period 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1995 allegedly bears the signature of the inspector. Thus, once the printed portion of the certificate bears the year 1998, then, how it may bear the signature of an inspector for renewal for the period from 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1995. Further, when the date of registration is shown as 3.10.1978, then how there can be a renewal for the period from 1.4.1976 to 31.3.1978 or 4.1.1978 to 31.3.1982.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has declined to reply all the aforesaid three queries.
The short question involved in this petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 ? There is no dispute that one Sri Lala Manihar was the original tenant. He had a son Sri Ramjani. The petitioner is a married daughter of Late Lala Manihar.. Section 3(g) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 defines the word “family” as under:
“(g) "family", in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means his or her-
(i) spouse,
(ii) male lineal descendants,
(iii) such parents, grand parents and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant, as may have been normally residing with him or her, and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building;”
Section 14 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 provides a person to be deemed authorised licencee or tenant of a building if such licencee or tenant was in occupation of the building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Amendment) Act, 1976, substituted by U.P. Act No.28 of 1976 w.e.f. 5.7.1976. Thus, if a licencee or a tenant is in occupation of a shop or building prior to the aforesaid cut off date then he shall be deemed to be a valid tenant under the Act even without allotment order. But the aforesaid provisions does not regularise sub-tenancy. The scope of Section 14, is, thus, limited, as has been held in Gopal Ji Vs. VI A.D.J. Varanasi and others 2006 1 ARC 250.
As per definition of the word “family”, the petitioner could have succeeded the deceased Lala Manihar provided she falls within the meaning of the word “family” under Section 3(g) of the Act. The petitioner has not filed any evidence before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer or the court below to establish that she is a tenant prior to the aforesaid cut off date. The findings recorded in this regard by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the court below are the findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record which can not be interfered in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has completely failed to establish that she was occupying the disputed shop prior to the cut off date as tenant so as to get protection of Section 14 of the Act. Therefore, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as the court below have not committed any manifest error of law to hold the petitioner to be an unauthorised occupant and to declare the vacancy and to release the disputed accommodation.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned judgment and order. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018/vkg