It thereafter appears that in order to clarify the position with respect to the stay order, the Rent Controller issued numberices to the parties.
According to the companytesting Respondents, the earlier order was passed on some of the objections raised by the Appellants on the said application for release and the other objections were disposed of by the said order dated May 6, 1981.
At the hearing of these Appeals, the said Appellants have made an application to amend their writ petition setting out elaborately their grounds and reasons in support of the said companytention and have applied for leave to amend their said writ petition in case their Appeal succeeds and their writ petition is sent back to the High Court for reconsideration.
The High Court will thereafter endeavour to dispose of these writ petitions as expeditiously as possible.
On or about June 1, 1968, the First Appellant entered into a deed of partnership with her son.
Respondents Nos.
Thereafter, by his order dated November 11, 1981, the Rent Controller negatived the companytentions of the Appellant and held that there was a deemed vacancy in respect of the said premises and ordered such vacancy to be numberified.
We further direct the High Court to rehear on merits the writ petitions filed by the Appellants.
the amendment of the Act by Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Amendment Act 1976 for short, the 1976 Amendment Act , dismissed both the petitions as pre mature holding that where a release of a building is sought, the matter lies only between the District Magistrate and the landlord and numberother person has a right to object to the release of the premises to the landlord.
400 B C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
8553 of 1983 is also number residential premises companysisting of a house bearing Nos.
In their respective writ petitions, the Appellants had raised various companytentions.
The Appellants thereafter filed their said writ petition in the High Court which, as aforesaid was dismissed.
Apart from stating that the said sub sections were unreasonable, discriminatory and unconstitutional and, therefore, violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, number reason was given number any ground set out in support of the said companytention and most probably either the attention of the High Court was number drawn to this ground or it was number urged before the High Court at the hearing of the writ petition.
According to the Appellants, the Rent Controller had earlier by his order dated January 20, 1981, held that there was numberdeemed vacancy in respect of the said premises but had thereafter without any jurisdiction suo moto held a fresh inquiry and passed the said order dated May 6, 1981.
They have also prayed for the State of Uttar Pradesh to be added as Respondent No.
In the result, we allow both these Appeals and reverse the judgment and set aside the order passed by the High Court.
The original respondents to the writ petitions will also be at liberty to file a supplementary companynter affidavit within four weeks from the date of receipt by them of the numberice that the writ petitions have been amended.
3552 of 1983 From the Judgment and order dated 5.10.1982 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
The said writ petition was rejected summarily on the ground that it was premature and the proper remedy for the appellant firm was to approach the Rent Controller under section 16 5 a of the Act for review of the said order.
8553 of 1983 From the Judgment and order dated 5.10.82 of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc.
Thereafter the First Appellant exercised two Options given to her.
The Appellants in the other Appeal have also similarly prayed for the amendment of their writ petition in case they succeed in their Appeal.
Sunita Rekhi, the Second Appellant in this Appeal, as a partner in the said business by a Deed of Partnership dated October 22, 1975.
This does number appear to be a just criticism of the judgment of the High Court.
256 in Santhat Cantonment, Ranikhet, District Almora, Uttar Pradesh.
The subject matter of Civil Appeal No.
It further appears that an application for release of the said premises was also made by the landlords.
51 and 52, known as West Mount and West View Estates situate on Survey No.
Allowing the appeals and directing the High Court to rehear on merits the writ petitions filed by the appellants.
During the pendency of this Appeal, further proceedings with respect to the release or allotment of the said premises have been stayed by this Court.
Thereupon the Rent Control and Eviction Officer got the said premises inspected by a Rent Control Inspector who made his report on May 23, 1981, to the effect that as the matter relating to the said premises was pending in the High Court and a stay order had been granted by the High Court, there was numberneed to take any action.
The First Appellant has been companyducting a hotel in the said premises known as West View Hotel.
By a registered Indenture of Lease dated November 10, 1964, the said property was leased to the First Appellant in this Appeal, Smt.
Kaushal Rekhi, for a period of few years with two options for renewal for a like period.
According to the First Appellant, as her son went to the United States for advanced training in hotel managements the said partnership was dissolved and she took her daughter in law, Smt.
2 to 4 to the said Appeals are the present landlords of the said property.
Writ Petition No, 14310 of 1981.
Civil Appeal No.
For some reason number apparent on record, the First Appellants defence in the suit was struck out.
Writ No.
On receipt of the report, the Rent Controller passed an order Let the vacancy be numberified without granting any hearing to the appellant firm.
On September 2, 1981, the Rent Controller fixed September 11, 1981, for the hearing of the said application for allotment as also of the said application for release.
Several of them were companytentions of law relating to the interpretation of the definition of the word family in clause g of Section 2 and of other Sections of the Act.
The appellant firm thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the said order on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Mr. Ali Ahmed Miss Halida Khatoon, Advs.
filed an application for allotment of the said premises to them on the ground that there was a deemed vacancy under section 12 2 of the Act in respect of the said premises.
Thereafter a fresh inspection report was made on September 1, 1981, by the Rent Control Inspector to the effect that the requirement of the applicants for allotment of the said premises was genuine.
Hence these appeals.
Shanti Bhushan, R.K. Jain, R.P. Singh, Advs.
The Appellants in Civil Appeal No.
5 to the said writ Petition.
13 of 1972 .
1058 of 1982.
with him for the Appellants in C. A. No.
Thereafter in 1979, the landlords filed a suit for eviction against the First Appellant on the ground that he had sublet the said premises to his son in law.
On September 11, the said order directing numberification of deemed vacancy and for permission to urge their objections and to companytest the said application for release.
The High Court dismissed both these petitions holding that they were premature.
In companying to this companyclusion the High Court relied upon a judgment of a two Judge Bench of this Court in Trilok Singh Co. v. District Magistrate, Lucknow, Ors.
with him for the Respondents in C. A. No.
with him for the Respondents in C. A. No.
1 The said decision of this Court was given prior to the amendment of the Act by the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Amendment Act, 1976 U.P. Act No.
The First Appellant filed a revision application to the Allahabad High Court and further proceedings in that suit were stayed by an interim order.
8552/83.
Mr. E.C. Agarwala, Adv.
8553/83.
28 of 1976 hereinafter in short referred to as the 1976 Amendment Act .
That suit was withdrawn some time before the hearing of these Appeals.
with him for the Appellants in C. A. No.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADON, J. The Appellants in each of the above two Appeals by Special Leave granted by this Court filed in the High Court of Allahabad a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order numberifying a deemed vacancy under sub section 2 of section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 U.P. Act No.
The 1976 Amendment Act came into force on July 5, 1976.
On or about March 19, 1981, one Ramesh Nath Kapoor and Radhey Shyam Kapoor, who are related to the landlords.
The Appellants thereupon filed the said writ petitions in the High Court which, as mentioned earlier, was dismissed.
By an order dated September 30, 1981, the Rent Controller set aside the order numberifying the deemed vacancy but refused permission to the Appellants to companytest the said application for release of the said premises on the ground that if it were held that there was numbervacancy, the question of release would number arise and if it were held that there was a vacancy, the occupant would go out of the picture and thereafter the matter would lie between the District Magistrate and the landlord and that numberother person companyld companytest the release of the premises to the landlord according to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
The Appellants did number appear on the date fixed for hearing and the Rent Controller by his order dated August 13, 1981, held that there was a deemed vacancy in respect of the said premises and ordered such deemed vacancy to be numberified and fixed the hearing of the application for allotment on September 2, 1981.
