JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Sri Vishwa Ratna Dwivedi, counsel for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition arises out of release order dated 11.7.2006 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional District Magistrate (VI), Kanpur Nagar-respondent No. 1, appended as Annexure 7 to the writ petition releasing premises No. 109/70, Nehru Nagar, Kanpur Nagar in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 2.
3. The facts of the case, as placed by counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is tenant of ground floor accommodation of house No. 109/70, Nehru Nagar, Kanpur Nagar comprising of one covered Verandah, two rooms and other common amenities. Sri Anand Kumar Misra is the landlord.
4. Sri Anand Kumar Misra-.respondnt No. 2 moved release application, registered as Case No. 31 of 2005 under Section 15 (1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the accommodation, in dispute.
5. On the direction of Rent Control and Eviction Officer-respondent No. 1, the Rent Control Inspector conducted spot inspection on 2.3.2005 and vide his inspection report dated 31.3.2005, appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, he reported that the petitioner is in fact, living in other house at Rambagh, Kanpur and she is an unauthorized occupant of the disputed accommodation and recommended that the vacancy be declared. The relevant extract of the report of the Rent Control Inspector dated 31.3.2005 is as under:
;g fd esjs Hkou ds Hkwfe [k.M ds ,d cM+s dejs ftlds vkxs doMZ vkaxu gS mlds ckn ,d NksVk dejk gS fQj cjkenk thuk ikl gS ,oa ckFk esa foxr 4 o"kZ ls Jherh ccyh ;kno iRuh fot; mQZ dYyw vukf/kdkj fcuk ,ykVesUV rFkk esjh bPNk ,oa lgefr ds fcuk ,ykVesUV rFkk esjh bPNk ,oa lgefr ds fcuk voS/kkfud :Ik ls dCtk djds jg jgh gSA
6. On receipt of notice, the petitioner filed objection specifically stating therein that the respondent No. 2 was not the landlord. She claimed that Sri Rajiv Mishra alias Sri Raju Mishra-respondent No. 4 is the real landlord and she was continuously paying rent to him. She further assailed the inspection report of Rent Control Inspector on the ground that, in fact, no inspection was made and the report was concocted one. Respondent No. 2- the landlord also filed rejoinder.
7. Vacancy was ultimately declared by the respondent No. 1 vide judgment and order dated 31.5.2006. In pursuance of the vacancy order dated 31.5.2006, impugned release order dated 11.7.2006 was passed by the respondent No. 1.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has come up before this Court by means of the instant writ petition.
9. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent No. 2 is not the landlord of the disputed accommodation and respondent No. 4 is the real landlord to whom she has been paying rent.
10. He urged that the Rent Control Inspector never visited the disputed premises and the report dated 31.3.2005 is concocted one and such, the release order in favour of respondent No. 2 is illegal and arbitrary.
11. He submits that apart from the accommodation, in dispute, the respondent No. 2 is in possession of two other premises, but the respondent No. 1 has conveniently overlooked this factum of the case and passed the impugned order. Moreover, he contends that the petitioner has all along been disputing the title of respondent No. 2 as landlord and she has been claiming that the respondent No. 4 is the real landlord. As such, so long the title is not decided, accommodation, in dispute, cannot be released.
12. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the report of Sri B.D. Yadav, Rent Control Inspector dated 31.3.2005 clearly reveals that the same is not concocted but is based on material evidence of the parties collected by him after visiting the premises, in dispute. The relevant portion of the report is as under:
c;ku orZeku v/;kfluh& Ikz'uxr Hkkx ds lEcU/k esa Jherh lk/kuk mQZ ccyh iRuh Jh fot; dqekj ;kno fuoklh e0 ua0 [email protected] usg: uxj] dkuiqj uxj vius vf/koDrk ds lkFk dk;kZy; vk;h vkSj viuk ,d fyf[kr c;ku izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd *esjs Hkkx esa Jh izeksn dqekj feJk fuoklh 255&Mh Cykd iudh dkuiqj uxj us ,d ,ykVes.V vkosnu&Ik= U;k;ky; esa Jheku ,0 lh0 ,l0 "k"Ve ds ;gka yxk;k x;k gS ftlesa fd eSa Lo;a bl Hkkx esa fdjk;snkj gawA ftlds edku ekfyd Jh jktho feJk mQZ jktw feJk gSa ftudks esa 15 o"kksaZ ls fdjk;k nsrh vk jgh gwWa tcfd edku ds bl Hkkx esa edku ekfyd Jherh jke I;kjh dks n'kkZ;k x;k gS tks fd esjh edku ekyfdu ugha gSA edku dk dksbZ ljdkjh caVokjk ugha gqvk gS flQZ ekSf[kd caVokjk gh gSA ftlls edku dk dksbZ Hkh Hkkx fyf[kr esa ugha gS ftldk fdjk;k eSa Jh jktw feJk dks gh izfrekg nsrh vk jgh gwWaA ,ykVes.V dk vkosnu&Ik= flQZ dkuwuh rkSj ij ijs'kku djus ds fy;s gh yxk;k x;k gS tks fd U;k;fgr esa [kkfjt djus ;ksX; gS tks Hkh c;u fn;k x;k gS og iw.kZr% LoLFk euksn'kk fcuk fdlh ncko ds fn;k x;k gSA bZ'oj esjh enn djsA buds c;ku dh iqf"V jktw feJk us dh gS c;ku ds lkFk Jherh lk/kuk mQZ ccyh }kjk mijksDr Hkkx esa jgus ls lEcfU/kr fdlh izdkj ds lk{; dks layXu ugha fd;k x;k gSaA c;ku vkids voyksdukFkZ Ik=koyh esa ewy:I ls layXu gSA c;ku x`gLokfeuh Ikz'uxr Hkkx ds lEcU/k esa Jherh jke I;kjh iRuh Lo0 Jh jke xksiky fuoklh [email protected] usg: uxj] dkuiqj uxj dk iwoZ viuk vaxwBk fu'kkuh yxkdj buds vf/koDrk }kjk dk;kZy; esa vkdj vyx ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd *eSa Hkou la[;k [email protected] usg: uxj] kgj dkuiqj dh ekfyd edku dkfct o x`gLokfeuh gwWaA ;g mijksDr edku eq>s jft0 olh;r fnukad 28-11-1985 tks esjs ifr Jh jke xksiky feJ us eq>s fy[kh Fkh mlls izkIr gqvk gSA Nk;k izfr izek.k Ik= layXu gSA esjs ifr Jh jke xksiky dh e`R;q fnukad 22-3-1991 dks gks pqdh gS vc eSa mijksDr Hkou dh iw.kZ ,oa rUgk Lokfeuh gwWaA esjh vk;q djhc 90 o"kZ h gSA eSa mDr Hkou esa kiFkh vius ifjokj iq= o/kw ikS= o ikS=h ftudh la[;k 13 gS cM+h eqf'dy ls izFke [k.M o Hkwfe [k.M esa dqy feykdj 5 NksVs&NksVs dejs esa jg jgs gSa] tks cgqr de gS rFkk vkoklh; laeL;k dh rhoz dfBukbZ dk lkeuk iwjk ifjokj dj jgk gSA ;g fd esjk Hkou iqjkuk gS vkSj fdjk;k fu;U=.k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr gSA ;g fd esjs Hkou ds Hkwfe [k.M ds ,d cM+s dejs ftlds vkxs dcMZ vkaxu gS mlds ckn ,d NksVk dejk gS fQj cjkenk thuk ikl gS ,oa ckFk esa foxr 4 o"kZ ls Jherh ccyh ;kno iRuh fot; ;kno mQZ dYyw vukf/kdkj fcuk ,ykVes.V rFkk esjh bPNk o lgefr ds fcuk voS/kkfud :Ik ls dCtk djds jg jgh gSa vkSj [kkyh ugha dj jgh gSA ccyh ;kno ds ifr dYyw ;kno fot; ;kno jke ckx fLFkr vU; edku esa jgrs gSa tc eSa [kkyh djus dks dgrh gwWa rks ccyh ;kno xkyh&xykSt o >xM+k djrh gSA vkt rd dksbZ fdjk;k dHkh eSaus ugha fy;k vkSj u ccyh us fn;kA ;g fd blh izdkj esjs mijksDr edku la[;k [email protected] usg: uxj] dkuiqj ds izFke [k.M ds nks dejs cjkenk [email protected] cM+k ckFk:e ,oa vkxas NTtk lM+d dh rjQ lqjs'k mQZ ckck vius ifjokj ds lkFk foxr 4 o"kksZa ls vukf/kd`r fcuuk esjh lgefr ,oa Lohd`fr ds fcuk fdjk;k fn;s voS/kkfud dCtk djds jg jgs Fks D;ksafd izkfFkZuh 90 lky dh o`) gS izkfFkZuh dk iq= cky fd'ku 66 lky dk gS ,oa cPps f'kf{kr gSa---------------------A
13. From the perusal of the aforesaid report, it is evident that the petitioner pleaded her case before the Rent Control Inspector through her counsel, who after discussing the evidence led by both the parties, submitted his report dated 31.3.2005. Therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the report is concocted has no force. From the report, it is also apparent that the petitioner has been residing in the accommodation, in dispute, without any valid order of allotment and without the consent of the landlady/landlord. She has also not been paying any rent to the actual landlady/landlord-respondent No. 2 for the accommodation, in dispute, and has all along been claiming respondent No. 4 to be the real landlord.
14. A bare perusal of impugned order dated 31.5.2006 declaring the vacancy passed by the respondent No. 1 also makes it amply clear that the respondent No. 1 has thoroughly considered the case of both the parties and came to the conclusion that the accommodation, in dispute, was unauthorizedly being occupied by the petitioner and thereafter declared the vacancy. The relevant portion of the order is as under:
eSusa Ik=koyh dk lE;d~ voyksdu ,oa ifj'khyu fd;k ,oa fjDrrk fcUnq ij Ik{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa dh fo}Rrkiw.kZ cgl lquhA v;klh Ik{k dk dFku gS fd og iz'uxr Hkkx esa foxr 15 o"kksZa ls crkSj fdjk;snkfj;k fuokl dj jgh gS vkSj iz'uxr Hkkx dk fdjk;k og jktho feJk mQZ jktw feJk dks izfrekg nsrh pyh vk jgh gS ysfdu v/;klh Ik{k }kjk dksbZ fdjk;s dh jlhn ugha nkf[ky dh x;h gS vkSj u gh Ik=koyh ij miyC/k iap'kkys ds fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj jktho feJk mQZ jktw feJk iz'uxr edku ds Hkou Lokeh gh gSA cfYd iz'uxr edku ds iwoZ edku ekfyd Lo0 jkexksiky Fks ftUgksaus tfj;s olh;r fnukad 28-11-1985 dks iz'uxr edku jkeI;kjh nsoh dks fn;k gS vkSj jkeI;kjh nsoh dh e`R;q ds Ik'pkr~ vfuy dqekj feJk o vkuUn feJk iq=x.k ckyd`".k feJk HkouLokeh gSaA vxj FkksM+h nsj ds fy;s Jherh lk/kuk mQZ ccyh dh fdjk;snkjh foxr 15 o"kksaZ ls eku Hkh yh tk;s rks Hkh og 5 tqykbZ] lu~ 1976 ds vUrxZr oS/kkfudk fdjk;snkj dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrh gS vkSj u gh muds ikl dksbZ vko.Vu vkns'k gh gSA foif{kuh lk/kuk mQZ ccyh ;kno iz'uxr Hkkx esa vukf/kd`r o xSj&dkuwuh ax ls viuk dCtk fd;s gq;s gSaA pwafd v/;klh Ik{k }kjk viuh fdjk;snkjh ds leFkZu esa ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugha nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS ftlls mldh fdjk;snkjh oS/kkfud fl) gksrh gSA v/;klh Ik{k viuk Ik{k lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgs gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa iz'uxr Hkkx dh oS/kkfud fjDrrk ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k vr% vkokl la0 [email protected] usg: uxj Fkkuk uthjkckn dkuiqj uxj ds Hkwfe [k.M ij fLFkr ,d cM+k dejk] ftlds vkxs doMZ vkaxu mlds ckn ,d NksVk dejk rFkk thus ds ikl cjkenk Jherh lk/kuk mQZ ccyh ;kno ds vukf/kd`r v/;klu okyk Hkkx dks oS/kkfud :I ls fjDr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA fjDrrk dk fu;ekuqlkj izn'kZu djk;k tk;sA fjDrrk dk fu;ekuqlkj izn'kZu djk;k tk;sA fjDrrk dk izdk'ku nSfud fgUnh o vaxzsth lekpkj&Ik= esa djk;k tk;sA Ik=koyh fnukad 1-7-2006 dks okLrs [email protected] ij dk;Zokgh gsrq is'k gksA fnukad 31-5-2006 g0 vLi"V jktsUnz flag fd0 fu0 ,oa fu0 [email protected] u0 e0 lIre dkuqij uxjA
15. Thus, the respondent No. 1 has recorded a finding of fact that late Sri Ram Gopal Misra was the owner of the disputed property and he executed a registered Will dated 28.11.1985 in favour of his wife, who also expired on 1.6.2OO5. After her death, the respondent No. 2 being her son and legal representative is the owner of the disputed property. A finding of fact has also been recorded that the petitioner could not produce any documentary or oral evidence in support of her case that Sri Rajiv Misra is landlord and that she is a legal and valid tenant as she could produce no allotment order in her favour. Thus, vacancy was rightly declared vide order dated 31.5.2006.
16. Perusal of release order dated 11.7.2006 also reveals that the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship was considered by respondent No. 1 and only thereafter, the release order in favour of respondent No. 2 has been passed. It is evident from the following portion of the order impugned:
eSaus Ik=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa dk fof/kd voyksdu fd;k rFkk x`gLokehx.k }kjk nkf[ky fyf[kr cgl dk Hkh voyksdu fd;kA kiFk&Ik= ,oa fjyht izkFkZuk x`gLokehx.k ds vuqlkj mudh vko';drk mfpr ,oa ln~Hkkoh izrhr gksrh gS vkSj iz'uxr Hkkx muds Ik{k esa fueqZZDr fd;s tkus dk Ik;kZIr vk/kkj gSA
17. The petitioner has relied upon an affidavit of Sri Rajiv Misra alias Raju Misra appended with the writ petition wherein it has been accepted that the petitioner has been paying regular rent to him. However, the petitioner has not been able to prove as to how Sri Rajiv Misra alias Raju Misra became landlord of the premises, in dispute. If petitioner has all along been paying rent to a third party, who has no right, title or interest over the disputed property, she has to blame herself but the right of the real landlord cannot be infringed. Sri Rajiv Misra alias Raju Misra is a third party having no right, title or interest over the disputed property could not receive rent from the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been occupying the disputed property unauthorizedly without payment of any rent to the actual landlord. In any case, it is on record that the petitioner has her one house in Rambagh, Kanpur in the same notified Municipal limits but is forcibly occupying the premises, in dispute.
18. A third party cannot create relationship of landlord and tenant by means of an agreement with a person who is not landlord unless he is authorized by the owner/landlord to act on his behalf for recovery of rent. Even in that case, a third party, so authorized, would not become owner of the house. His right, in case of being authorized by the landlord, would only be confined to the extent of realizing rent by the tenant on behalf of the landlord and nothing more. If a tenant claims that a person is his/her landlord, he/she has to prove before the Court that it is so. It is to prevent misuse of provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972 and the spirit in which it has been legislated for the benefits of landlord as well as tenant. Act No. XIII of 1972 is not a beneficial piece of legislation only to be construed in favour of tenants. In fact, there are number of provisions for the benefit of landlord also to prevent mischief by the tenant. In the present case, the petitioner has tried to create mischief with the landlord/landlady by entering into an agreement with Sri Rajiv Misra alias Raju Misra and it appears from record that Sri Rajiv Misra alias Raju Misra take drugs and the contention of the landlady is that though Sri Rajiv Misra alias Raju Misra is related to her, he may have entered into the agreement with the petitioner under the influence of drugs. Even otherwise, a person, who is neither landlord nor has been authorized to realize rent by the landlord is vested with no right to give accommodation to a person. Such an agreement would not vest any right to Sri Rajiv Misra alias Raju Misra to impersonify himself to be landlord.
19. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. It is directed that the petitioner will vacate the disputed accommodation within two months from today and will also make payment of arrears of rent from the date of occupation till the date of eviction to the respondent No. 2-landlord within the same period. In case, petitioner fails to vacate the premises, in dispute, within the stipulated period, she will be evicted by coercive process with the aid of local police and in case of nonpayment of arrears of rent, as directed above, the same shall be recovered from her by the authority as arrears of land revenue. No order as to costs.