Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1982 (2) TMI 323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. The appeal involves a short and simple point but the case appears to have had rather a long and chequered career. Put briefly, the facts of the case fall within a narrow compass so far as the points for decision are concerned. The first respondent, Smt. Rajkumari Jain, inducted Shri Thapalayal as a tenant in the premises in dispute which are situated in the town of Bijnor. The tenant intimated his intention to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to vacate the premises on 25.6.1974. On receipt of the aforesaid application of the tenant a Rent Control Inspector was directed to visit the spot and after visiting the same he reported that the premises in question were likely to fall vacant on 9.6.74. The prescribed authority by its Orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... provision would clearly disclose that the object of the Act was that where a tenant inducted by the landlord voluntarily vacates the premises, which are a part of the building occupied by the landlord, an allotment in the vacancy should be made only to a person nominated by the landlord. The dominant purpose to be subserved by the Act is manifestly the question of removing any inconvenience to the landlord by imposing or thrusting on the premises an unpleasant neighbour or a tenant who invades the right of privacy of the landlord. It is obvious that if the tenant has vacated the premises by himself and not at the instance of the landlord, there is no question of the landlord occupying the said premises because he has got a separate remedy f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bijnor directed the counsel for the landlady to nominate a person for allotment of the premises. As against this, the landlady applied for release of the accommodation to her in terms of the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the Act which runs thus : 16. Allotment and release of vacant building. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the District Magistrate may by order: (a) xx xx (b) release the whole or any part of such building, or any land appurtenant thereto, in favour of the landlord (to be called a release order). 6. The prayer of the landlady under Section 16(1)(b) also appears to have been ignored by the Rent Control authorities and by an Order dated 15.4.76, the District Supply Officer re-allotted the accommoda .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent submitted that initially the only question before the Rent Control Authority was whether the allotment should be made to the appellant even though he was not nominated by the landlady under Section 17(2) of the Act. It is common ground that the appellant was not a nominee of the landlady and, as discussed above, the District Judge in his first order had quashed the allotment on the ground that the provisions of Section 17(2) had not been complied with. 9. It was also argued on behalf of the respondent-landlady that the circumstances having changed, she now wanted to stay in Bijnor permanently and as she wanted additional accommodation she had applied to the District Magistrate under Section 16(1)(b) for releasing the building in her .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Court has rightly remanded the case for a fresh decision on all the points involved. 12. So far as the second point is concerned, viz., the question of allotment of the premises to the appellant, the High Court was fully justified in quashing the order of the District Supply Officer as affirmed by the District Judge because despite several opportunities no attempt had been made to approach the landlady to nominate a tenant. There is no evidence to show that either the prescribed authority or the Rent Control and Eviction Officer ever approached the landlady for making a nomination in respect of the premises vacated by the original tenant and she refused to do so. All that the landlady did was to ask for the release of the premises but e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates