JUDGMENT Shitla Pd. Srivastava, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 18.5.1983 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra and order passed by the Special Judge (Additional District Judge), Agra dated 21.9.1984.
2. The facts stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner claimed himself to be the tenant of the accommodation in question. It was stated by the petitioner that he took that accommodation on rent from the previous landlady Smt. Raj Rani Kapoor, who was living in the same house and he used to pay the rent to her but no rent receipt was ever issued to the petitioner by the landlady. It is stated that at two limes, i.e., in the years 1971 and 1973 when she was away from Agra and stayed at Jaipur due to long illness, the petitioner sent rent of the house in occupation of the petitioner and the electricity charge for nine months and six months respectively by money order, which was accepted by her. She again went to Jaipur in January 1978 for temporary period. There she fell ill again and stayed with her daughter and ultimately she died in the year 1980. The petitioner sent rent and electricity charges for the period December. 1977 to September, 1980 through cheques of Canara Bank to Jaipur. Petitioner's further allegations are that after the death of landlady Smt. Raj Rani Kapoor. her daughter became the owner and landlady of the building and the disputed accommodation. The petitioner paid rent to her through cheque for the period from October. 1980 to February 1982. In February. 1982, the daughter of the previous landlady sold the properly to the respondent No. 4 and three others. The allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 manufactured and forged the deed of agreement alleged to have been executed by the petitioners showing him as care-taker and agreeing to vacate the accommodation within three months. After the three months, the respondent No. 4 set up respondent No. 3 for moving an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the allotment of the disputed accommodation on the ground that the petitioner is in illegal occupation and, therefore, there is vacancy and the same may be allotted to him. It is stated by the petitioner that no notice was issued on the application rather notice was directly published in the newspaper which was behind the back of the petitioner. The application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that he is the tenant since 1966 on monthly rent of Rs. 25 and, therefore, there is no vacancy of the disputed accommodation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as the tenancy has been regularised under Section 14 of Act No. 13 of 1972 as amended by Act No. 28 of 1976. The case was contested by the respondent No. 4 on the ground that the petitioner is care-taker of the building and he executed an agreement for the same and has agreed to vacate the accommodation within three months and since he had not vacated the accommodation therefore his possession has become unauthorised. The prescribed authority has held that the petitioner is a care-taker and declared the vacancy and ordered for the allotment of the disputed accommodation.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge, who also rejected the same. The petitioner has challenged these two orders in the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that when the petitioner was living in the accommodation in question since 1966 his tenancy was regularised under Section 14 of the Act as the Act is applicable to the building. Therefore, there was no vacancy and the petitioner was not an unauthorised occupant. He has further urged that when the petitioner applied for cross-examination of one M.L. Arora no opportunity was given to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that even if it is presumed that the petitioner was unauthorised occupant in that case also his possession was regularised under Section 14 of Act No. 13 of 1972. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that finding of fact has been recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the agreement is not genuine document but he has wrongly recorded that the petitioner was a care-taker. His further submission is that the revisional court also affirmed the finding recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the petitioner is not the tenant rather he is only a care-taker therefore he is an unauthorised occupant.
5. Sri Madhur Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent urged that from the record, which has been discussed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer it is apparent that the petitioner was never a tenant rather he was only a care-taker and this finding of fact has rightly been affirmed by the revisional authority. Therefore, the finding of fact cannot be challenged in the present writ petition. His further submission is that the petitioner has failed to prove that he had any permission or consent of the landlady to occupy the premises in question as a tenant, therefore, there is no question of regularlsation of tenancy under Section 14 of the Act and even if the agreement in question is said to be there it" is inadmissible evidence that agreement was not with original landlady, therefore, there was no consent of the landlady and further that the payment of rent has not been proved at all and as the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant therefore, the petitioner was not a sitting tenant. He has further contended that provisions of Section 14 of the Act are not applicable to the Cantonment area and, therefore," there is no question of regulartsation of the tenancy in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his argument has placed reliance on Annexure-9 to the counter-affidavit which is a notification issued by the Central Government that Section 14 of the Rent Control Act is not applicable. The contesting respondent has alleged this fact in paragraph 24 of the counter-affidavit. A rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed. The reply of paragraph 24 of the counter-affidavit has been given in paragraph 25 of the rejoinder affidavit in which it is stated that notification has been issued behind the back of the petitioner.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the judgment and the documents available on record. Before proceeding to decide the controversy and discussing the argument of the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to quote Section 12 of the Rent Control Act under which the application was filed. The relevant section is quoted below :
"12. Deemed vacancy of building in certain cases.--(1) A landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if :
(a) he has substantially removed his effect therefrom, or
(b) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family, or
(c) In the case of a residential building, he as well as members of his family have taken up residence, not being temporary residence, elsewhere.
(3) In the case of a residential building, if the tenant or any member of his family builds or otherwise acquires in a vacant state or get vacated a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area in which the building under tenancy is situate, he shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy :
Provided that if the tenant or any member of his family had built any such residential building before the commencement of this Act, then such tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy upon the expiration of a period of one year from the said date.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-sect ion-
(a) a person shall be deemed to have otherwise acquired a building, if he is occupying a public building for residential purposes as a tenant, allottee or licensee ;
(b) the expression "any member of family", in relation to a tenant, shall not include a person who has neither been normally residing with nor is wholly dependent on such tenant.
(3A) If the tenant of a residential building holding a transferable post under any Government or local authority or a public sector corporation or under any other employer has been transferred to some other city, municipality, notified area or town area, then such tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy such building with effect from the thirtieth day of June following the date of such transfer or from the date of allotment to him of any residential accommodation (whether any accommodation be allotted under the Act or any official accommodation is provided by the employer) in the city, municipality, notified area or town area to which he has been so transferred, whichever is later.
(3B) If the tenant of a residential building is engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment in any city, municipality, notified area or town area in which the said building is situate, and such engagement ceases for any reason whatsoever and he is landlord of any other building in any other city, municipality, notified area or town area, then such tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the first mentioned building with effect from the date on which he obtains vacant possession of the last mentioned building whether as a result of proceedings under Section 21 or otherwise.
(4) Any building or part which a landlord or tenant has ceased to occupy within the meaning of subsection (1), or sub-section (2), or sub-section (3), sub-section (3A) or sub-section (3B) shall, for the purposes of that Chapter, be deemed to be vacant.
(5) A tenant or, as the case may be, a member of his family, referred to in sub-section (3) shall, have a right, as landlord of any residential building referred to in the said sub-section which may have been let out by him before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings [Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 to apply under clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 21 for the eviction of his tenant from which building, notwithstanding that such building is one to which the remaining provisions of this Act do not apply."
7. The petitioner is claiming benefit of Section 14 of the Act. The relevant Section 14 of the Act is quoted below :
"14. Regularisation of occupation of existing tenants.--Notwith-
standing anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licensee (within the meaning of Section 2A) or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar ' Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act. 1976, not being a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before any Court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such building."
8. Admittedly the petitioner has no evidence to prove the consent of the landlady/landlord. Therefore, to apply the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, it is necessary that the conditions mentioned under Section 14 of the Act should be there. Even if the agreement, which shows that he was permitted to remain as a caretaker is held to be inadmissible, there is no evidence with the petitioner and concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts, that he was only a care-taker and not the tenant. Apart from the aforesaid factual aspect, when it was asserted by the respondents that the provision of Section 14 is not applicable to the building situate within the Cantonment area. The mere say of the petitioners that it was issued behind his back is not sufficient to hold that the notification is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Copy of relevant notification has been filed as Annexure-CA 9 to the counter-affidavit. From a perusal of the notification, it is apparent that the applicability of Section 14 of the Act has been omitted in respect of the building situated in cantonment area and a finding to this effect has also been recorded by the revisional court. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit of Section 14 of the Act and his other claim that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, etc. cannot be said to be illegal as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has discussed other things in detail as to why the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was not given.
9. On the facts and circumstances, the writ petition has no force and is dismissed, There shall be no orders as to cost.