JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. Petitioners are landlords. Property in dispute is a room facing road, situate in Kanpur from where tenant also carried on the business of money lending. The rate of rent is Rs. 17.50. Initially one Harendra Kumar Basu was the tenant, against whom landlords filed release application under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as Rent Case No. 663 of 1977 and at the relevant time it was pending before Prescribed Authority/ Additional Munsif-XVI, Kanpur. During pendency of the release application Harendra Kumar Basu (H. K. Basu) died on 20.1.1981. Landlords petitioners applied for substitution of heirs/legal representatives of H. K. Basu which was allowed. On 16.10.1981 Ravindra Nath Singh (R. N. Singh) respondent No. 6 and Devendra Nath Singh (D. N. Singh) respondent No. 7 filed application before prescribed authority that original tenant H. K. Basu had executed a Will in respect of the tenancy of the disputed room and they were living with the deceased tenant, therefore, they became tenants after the death of H. K. Basu, hence they must be substituted at the place of H. K. Basu. Landlords petitioners filed their objections against the application of R. N. Singh and D. N. Singh along with declaration signed by the heirs and legal representatives of H. K. Basu to the effect that they were not interested in retaining the house. The prescribed authority on 10.2.1982 allowed the impleadment of R. N. Singh and D. N. Singh. This writ petition is directed against the said order of the prescribed authority.
2. It has been held by the Supreme Court in respect of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (U. P. Rent Regulation Act)) that tenancy cannot be bequeathed through Will vide Jaspal Singh v. A.D.J., . The prescribed authority through the impugned order rightly held that tenant could not execute the Will in respect of tenancy. However, the prescribed authority held that R. N. Singh and D. N. Singh had filed some documentary evidence to show that they were residing in the house along with the tenant and they were carrying on the business from the said house. The prescribed authority further held that as no objection was raised by the landlord in respect of residence of these persons along with tenant in the tenanted accommodation hence, it could be presumed that landlord had impliedly consented for their occupation. Prescribed authority, thereafter, granted benefit of Section 14 of the Act to R. N. Singh and D. N. Singh. Section 14 of the Act deals with regularization of tenancy if it has been created by the landlord before 1976 without allotment order.
3. Even if the version of R. N. Singh and D. N. Singh to the effect they were residing with the original tenant H. K. Basu is taken to be correct still they could not be substituted at the place of original tenant. As it was not the case of R. N. Singh and D. N. Singh that they had been inducted by the landlord, hence application of Section 14 of the Act was out of question. There is absolutely no material justifying implied consent of sub-letting by the landlord. The finding in this regard recorded by the prescribed authority is erroneous in law as it is based upon no evidence. There is no finding that landlord was aware of the subletting even if it was in existence. Even otherwise implied consent for sub-letting has got no value. Under Section 25 of the Act sub-letting is permissible only of a part of the accommodation and that also with the permission in writing of the landlord and of the District Magistrate. There was no allegation of the tenant regarding these facts. The order passed by prescribed authority is unjust, illegal and without jurisdiction. If the said order had not been passed on 10.2.1982, landlord would have got the possession of the property in the year 1981-82, as the legal representatives and heirs of original tenant H. K. Basu were neither using the accommodation in dispute nor they were interested in retaining possession thereof. They had also given declaration to that effect before prescribed authority. The said heirs are respondents 2 to 5 and their addresses are of Calcutta and Jamshedpur (Bihar). Respondent No. 6 R. N. Singh and legal representatives of respondent No. 7 D. N. Singh are in possession of the accommodation in dispute in an utterly unauthorized manner by courtesy of the prescribed authority who passed the impugned order dated 10.2.1982.
4. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 10.2.1982 is set aside.
5. As the room in dispute is situate in Kanpur and as it is adjacent to the road and is being used for commercial purpose by respondents 6, 7/1 and 7/2 hence respondent No. 6 R. N. Singh and legal representatives of respondent No. 7 D. N. Singh i.e., respondents No. 7/1 and 7/2 are directed to pay Rs. 300 per month as damages for use and occupation of the property in dispute since the death of original tenant H. K. Basu which occurred on 20.1.1981. The respondent No. 6 and legal representatives of respondent No. 7 are required to pay Rs. 300 per month to the landlord petitioners w.e.f. February 1981 till June 2005 (293 months), which comes to Rs. 87,900. The rate of damages of Rs. 300 per month is actually on the lower side.
6. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 87,900 shall be recovered by the Collector like arrears of land revenue from respondents No. 6, 7/1 and 7/2 and handed over to the landlords petitioners within three months from the date of filing of certified copy of this judgment before Collector. It is expected that Collector will not show any laxity in compliance of the order.
7. This extraordinary direction for recovery of damages has been issued in view of extraordinary situation. Respondents No. 6 and 7 boldly claimed that they were illegal sub-tenants and prescribed authority made them legal tenants.