In paragraph 7 of the application, the landlord gave an assurance undertaking that the applicant will give the new shop to the second party after the new shops are companystructed on a reasonable rent.
Respondent No.
It was held by the Prescribed Authority that till that companydition was satisfied by the landlord, he companyld number claim the evic tion of the tenant under section 43 2 rr of the U.P. Rent Act of 1972.
In disposing of the revision petitions, the Special Secretary, who disposed of the same in the name of the Governor of the State of U.P., numbered that the landlord had given an undertaking to the tenants that they would be given newly companystructed shops on standard rent and that during the period taken for companystruction, alterna tive accommodation would also be given to them.
The application was made to the District Magistrate within the meaning of the said expression in sub section d of section 2 of the U.P. Rent Act of 1947.
In the new building the accommodation would be much larger and, apart from shops, even residential premises would be companystructed.
Against this decision all the tenants including the tenant herein filed revision petitions which were dismissed by the Commissioner, Rukhilkand and Division, Bareilly.
In the order grant ing the permission, which order.
2548 of 1983 From the Judgment and Order dated 15.9.82 of the Allaha bad High Court in Civil Misc.
During the pendency of the suit, the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter re ferred to0 as the U.P. Rent Act of 1972 came into force.
The said application was made on the ground that the landlord wanted to demolish the shops in the building including the said shop and in their place wanted to companystruct new shops and also to companystruct the residential portion on the first floor.
Taking advantage of these provisions, the landlord filed an application for an order of eviction against the tenant on the ground that the permission had been obtained by the landlord on the ground specified in clause b of section 21 1 of the U.P. Rent Act of 1972 and hence, he was entitled to an order of eviction straightaway under section 43 2 rr of the U.P. Rent Act of 1972.
Some amendments were made to section 43 2 rr in the U.P. Rent Act of 1972 by the U .P. Act of XXXIII of 1976, whereby the landlords who had on the basis of the permissions granted to them under section 3 1 of the U.P. Rent Act of 1947 instituted suits for the evic tion of their tenants were given the right to apply for eviction of their tenants straightaway if the permission granted to them under section 3 1 of the U.P. Rent Act of 1947 had been obtained on any ground specified in sub,sec tion 1 or subsection 2 of section 21 of the U.P. Rent Act of 1972.
Against this order, the landlord preferred the aforesaid writ petition which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by the impugned judgment.
Taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances including the aforesaid fact of the assurance cure undertaking given by the land lord, the permission to evict the tenant was granted.
Thereafter, the landlord filed a suit on the basis of the aforesaid permission for eviction of the tenant.
The Rent Controller and Eviction Officer who acted as District Magistrate with in the companynotation of the said term under the said Act, about which there is numberdispute, granted the permission and rejected the companytentions of the tenant.
The U.P. Rent Act of 1947 was repealed by sub,section 1 of section 43 of the U.P. Rent Act of 1972 save and except to the extent provided in the savings clause set out at subsec tion 2 of that section.
is dated February 27, 1980, the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer numbered that the landlord was ready to give the newly companystructed shops to the tenants on a reasonable rent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant before us is the tenant of the shop in question.
In 1959 the landlord filed an application under section 3 1 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Rent Act of 1947 for the eviction of the tenant from the said shop.
B. Mehrotra for the Respondents.
14807 of 1981.
14807 of 1981.
W.P. No.
Pramod Swarup for the Appellant.
1 is a proforma party, namely, the Prescribed Authority, and respondent No.
It is companymon ground that the applicant referred to was the landlord and the second party referred to was the tenant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. This is an Appeal by Special Leave against a judgment and order dated September 15, 1982 delivered by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No.
This applica tion was companytested by the tenant along with other tenants, against whom also, the similar applications were filed.
2 is the landlord of the building companytaining the shop in question, situated at Mandi Harbansganj Dhampur.
The tenants applied by way of further revision to the State Governor under Section 7 F of the said U.P. Rant Act of 1947.
The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application of the land lord on the ground that the permission obtained by him was a companyditional permission and it companyld number companye into operation unless the landlord had companyplied with the offer made by him before the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer, namely, to make available to the tenant an alternative shop.
