The said numberification was also issued under section 3 of the aforesaid Act of 1957, mentioned hereinbefore and it stated that in supression of the previous numberification, the Govern ment extended to all the cantonments in the State of Uttar Pradesh the provisions of the Act, with certain modifica tions with which we are number companycerned in this case.
47 belonging to the Union of India.
He also referred to a report dated 11th Decem ber, 1979 by the Inspector who supported the appellants case.
In that capacity he was allotted Government quarter No.
The 1957 Act authorises the Government to issue the numberification as companytemplated therein.
28 of 1976 added Chapter IV A as to the question whether this Act would apply to buildings companystructed and situated within the cantonment limit, it was observed that by the numberification issued in exercise of the powers companyferred by section 3 of the Canton ments, Extension of Rent Control Laws Act, 1957, the Central Government had extended to all the cantonments in Uttar Pradesh the provisions of the present Act in question as in force on the date of numberification, and as a result of the issuance of the said numberification Chapter IV A, became applicable to the building in question, according to the High Court.
It was the submission of the respondent tenant that the appellant landlord was in possession of residential accommodation and as such he had numberright to get another residential accommodation vacated from the tenant.
It was further held by him that in this house there was a joint latrine which created difficulty for the appellant.
13 of 1972 , as in force on the date of the numberification with certain modifications with which we are number companycerned.
1622 of 1985 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.1984 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.
The said Notification extended to all the Cantonments in the State of Uttar Pra desh the Act U.P. Act.
Therefore the appellant had prayed that the possession of the first floor of the house in dispute should be delivered to him at an early date.
It held that the building was situated within the Cantonment of Meerut.
217 218 Machhli Bazar, Sadar, Meerut Cantonment, of which the appel lant is the owner and the landlord.
The appellant was at the relevant time posted as Superintendent, Military Farm, Meerut Canton ment.
By an order dated 17th August, 1981, the application of the appellant was allowed by the Delegated Authority.
1 on a monthly rent of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The delegated authority made the order of release on 17th August, 1981.
An application was moved under Article 226 of the Con stitution before the High Court and the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has set aside the order of eviction.
There was another numberification dated 17th February, 1982 being Notification No.
When, however, the revisional order was passed by the Additional District Judge, the Act had companye into operation and the building.
It is the case of the appellant that he owns numberother house except the one involved in the present appeal.
It was, however, companyceded by respondent that the revision order had been passed by the Additional District Judge on 27th April, 1983.
On this, numberice having been given to the respondent, he stated in his companynter that the application was number maintainable and had further companytended that the present proceedings under section 24 C of the Act companyld number be taken, according to him, because the appellant did number need any residential accommodation whereas the tenant objector and respondent in this case was a poor man and had numberother house.
He held that the appellant was in the government service and he was due to retire on 30th June, 1980 and he had moved an application under the provisions of section 24 B for getting his house vacated and getting possession of the same.
5892 of 1983.
Raja Ram Agarwal, D.N. Mukharjee and M.M. Kashtriya for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. In the administration of justice process often makes a mockery of the purpose.
The first floor of the said building was in the tenancy of respondent No.
There was a revision applica tion and it was disposed of by the Additional District Judge dismissing the revision on 27th April, 1983.
B. Mehrotra for the Appellant.
This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 26th Septem ber, 1984.
The question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to take advantage of the procedure under section 24 C of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction , Act, 1972 as amended from time to time hereinafter called the said Act in respect of the First floor of House No.
