# N.K. Sharma & another v. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Allahabad & another

- **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 543
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-08-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9075 of 1984
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/n-k-sharma-another-v-the-rent-control-eviction-officer-allahabad-another-40417
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Sri R. Asthana
Sri S.P. Singh
Sri G.N. Verma
Sri A. Srivastava
S.C.

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-S.
20(d)- Suit for ejectment on ground of
material alteration- For ejectment of
tenant material alteration has to be of
such a nature that diminishes value of
accommodation in question- Neither any
pleading nor any finding the revisional
court in this regard- Hence impugned
order quashed.

Held. Para 3

However, to me it appears that the
ground of material alteration does not
sufficient for ejectment of the tenant
even if the finding is that the tenant has
materially altered the accommodation in
question. In view of the provision of
Section 20 (2) (d) of the Act, this
material alteration is of such a nature,
which diminishes the value of the
accommodation in question. There is
neither any pleading, nor any finding by
the revisional Court, in this regard. In
this view the matter, the order passed by
the revisional Court deserves to be
quashed.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] N.K. Sharma & another V. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Allahabad & another 543
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.8.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9075 of 1984

Narendra Kumar Sharma and another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Rent Control and Eviction Officer,
Aligarh and another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri V.K. Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
S.C.

Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972- Ss. 16 and
12- Declaration of vacancy by RC & EO-
No opportunity of hearing given to
owner-quashi-judicial function- violation
of principles of natural justice -violated
Impugned order set aside.

Held- Para 1

The Rent Control and Eviction Officer,
Aligarh has passed an order under
Section 16 read with Section 12 of U.P.
Act No. 13 of 1972 declaring the vacancy
in accommodation in dispute, which is
owned by the petitioner. It is admitted
case, as would be clear from the
assertions made in the writ petition as
well as in the impugned order that
before passing the impugned order the
petitioner, owner/landlord has not been
afforded any opportunity of hearing by
the Rent control and Eviction Officer as
held in the case reported in 1984 (2) ARC
page 7 and 2002 (2) ARC 434 that the
District Magistrate while declaring the
vacancy or passing an allotment order
exercises
quasi
judicial
function,
therefore, even if there is no such
provision either in the provisions of
Section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 or
in the Rules 8 and 9 of U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent
and Eviction) Rules, 1972, the petitioner
being owner and landlord was entitled
for
opportunity
before
passing
the
impugned order.
Case law discussed:
1984(2) ARC 7
2002(2) ARC 434

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. The proceedings initiated on the
application of respondent no. 2, Mahesh
Chand Sharma who in spite of due service
of notice has chosen not to appear before
this court the Rent Control and Eviction
Officer, Aligarh has passed an order
under Section 16 read with Section 12 of
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 declaring the
vacancy in accommodation in dispute,
which is owned by the petitioner. It is
admitted case, as would be clear from the
assertions made in the writ petition as
well as in the impugned order that before
passing the impugned order the petitioner,
owner/landlord has not been afforded any
opportunity of hearing by the Rent control
and Eviction Officer as held in the case
reported in 1984 (2) ARC page 7 and
2002 (2) ARC 434 that the District
Magistrate while declaring the vacancy or
passing an allotment order exercises quasi
judicial function, therefore, even if there
is no such provision either in the
provisions of Section 16 of U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972 or in the Rules 8 and 9 of U.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting,
Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, the
petitioner being owner and landlord was
entitled for opportunity before passing the
impugned order.

2. In this view of the matter, the writ
petition succeeds and is allowed only on
this point. The matter is sent back to the
Rent Control and Eviction Officer,
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
544
Aligarh to be decided in accordance with
law after affording opportunity to the
petitioner. Since the matter is fairly old,
therefore, the Rent Control and Eviction
Officer is directed to decide the same
within three months from the date of
presentation of certified copy of this order
before him.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.8.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23013 of 1988

Harnam Das

...Petitioner
Versus
IInd
Additional
District
Judge,
Shahjahanpur and another ...Opposite
 Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Barman
Sri B.B. Jauhari
Sri R.Mohan
Sri H.P. Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri R. Asthana
Sri S.P. Singh
Sri G.N. Verma
Sri A. Srivastava
S.C.

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-S.
20(d)- Suit for ejectment on ground of
material alteration- For ejectment of
tenant material alteration has to be of
such a nature that diminishes value of
accommodation in question- Neither any
pleading nor any finding the revisional
court in this regard- Hence impugned
order quashed.

Held. Para 3

However, to me it appears that the
ground of material alteration does not
sufficient for ejectment of the tenant
even if the finding is that the tenant has
materially altered the accommodation in
question. In view of the provision of
Section 20 (2) (d) of the Act, this
material alteration is of such a nature,
which diminishes the value of the
accommodation in question. There is
neither any pleading, nor any finding by
the revisional Court, in this regard. In
this view the matter, the order passed by
the revisional Court deserves to be
quashed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Bhanu Bhushan
Jauhari, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel for the State as well as
Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel
for the contesting respondent.

2. The petitioner tenant aggrieved by
an order passed by the revisional court
dated 16th November, 1988, whereby the
revisional court set aside the judgment
and decree passed by the trial court
dismissing the suit filed by the land lord
for ejectment of the petitioner on the
ground that there is material alternation,
approached this Court by means of
present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner argued that the
finding regarding material alteration ifs
perverse and based on a report, which
cannot be said to have been proved
according to the evidence, which is
inadmissible and the said report was
submitted
by
the
Commissioner
in
connection with some other suit, he
therefore submitted that this report is