# Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd - **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 90 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2006-01-30 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41759 of 1992 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/road-transport-corporation-v-mohd-40804 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Sri H.S. Nigam C.S.C. U.P. Urban Building (Rent Control eviction) Act 1972, Act no. 13 of 1972Section 12 Deemed vacancy-petitioner practicing lawyer in taxation side- earning good income accommodation in question-commercial in nature for Rs.5/- per month rent-said rent also not paid on ground of quarrel between landlord for ownership-eviction order passed on the ground the shop is not being used-heldorder declaring vacancy can not sustain even if not used, even if tenant constructed his own shop direction issued for enhancement of rent from Rs.5/- to @ Rs.750/- per month. Held: Para 4 and 6 Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the impugned order declared the vacancy on the ground that shop in dispute was not being used by the petitioner. In my opinion, the order is illegal. Even if a commercial accommodation is not being used. It does not give rise to vacancy under any of the provisions of Section 12 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Rent Control and eviction Officer also found that petitioner had constructed some shops which were adjacent to the shop in dispute. This also could not give rise to vacancy in the case of commercial accommodation. Acquisition of another accommodation is a ground of vacancy only in the case of residential building. I have held in Khursheeda vs. A.D.J. 2004 (2) A.R.C.64 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Rent of Rs. 5/- per month for a shop in Saharanpur is virtually as well as actually no rent. By paying such a highly inadequate rent for several decades petitioner must have saved a lot of money. Money saved is money earned. Accordingly it is directed that with effect from February,2006 onwards petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord @ 750/- per month. If there is any dispute of landlord ship then rent at the above rate may be deposited by the tenant under section 30(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Case law discussed: 2004(2) ARC 64 ## Text 90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 public duty. The departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service." 19. While deciding the said case a very heavy reliance has been placed upon the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd Yousuf Miya & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2232, wherein it has been held that both proceedings can be held simultaneously unless the gravity of the charges demand staying the disciplinary proceedings till the trial is concluded as the complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case. 20. A similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. T. Srinivas, AIR 2004 SC 4127. A ThreeJudge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnakali Tea Estate Vs. Akhil Bhartiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 200 reconsidered all earlier judgments and reiterated the same view, as the approach and the objective of the criminal proceedings, and the disciplinary proceedings are distinct and different. There can be no bar in carrying on the criminal trial and criminal proceedings simultaneously. 21. Thus, there can be no doubt regarding the settled legal proposition that as the standard of proof in both the proceedings is quite different, and the termination is not based on mere conviction of an employee in a criminal case, the acquittal of the employee in criminal case cannot be the basis of taking away the effect of departmental proceedings. Nor such an action of the department can be termed as double jeopardy. The submission made in this regard is untenable in view of the law discussed herein above. 22. In the instant case, the disciplinary proceedings stood concluded much earlier as the punishment orders had been passed on 16.7.1997 and order of his acquittal in criminal case dated 5.7.2000. The Tribunal decided the claim petition on 30.07.1999 and as the Tribunal also did not have any occasion to assess the impact of the judgment of the criminal Court which came much later on 05.07.2000. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be either faulted or interfered with. The State has suffered a huge financial loss which has been embezzled by the petitioner, and the charge stood proved against the petitioner in disciplinary proceedings. In a limited scope of judicial review, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the judgment and order dated 30.7.1999, passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. 23. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.U.KHAN, .J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41759 of 1992 Baldeo Krishna, ...Petitioner Versus Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.B. D. Mishra 1 All] Baldeo Krishna V. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur and another 91 Counsel for the Respondent: Sri H.S. Nigam C.S.C. U.P. Urban Building (Rent Control eviction) Act 1972, Act no. 13 of 1972Section 12 Deemed vacancy-petitioner practicing lawyer in taxation side- earning good income accommodation in question-commercial in nature for Rs.5/- per month rent-said rent also not paid on ground of quarrel between landlord for ownership-eviction order passed on the ground the shop is not being used-heldorder declaring vacancy can not sustain even if not used, even if tenant constructed his own shop direction issued for enhancement of rent from Rs.5/- to @ Rs.750/- per month. Held: Para 4 and 6 Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the impugned order declared the vacancy on the ground that shop in dispute was not being used by the petitioner. In my opinion, the order is illegal. Even if a commercial accommodation is not being used. It does not give rise to vacancy under any of the provisions of Section 12 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Rent Control and eviction Officer also found that petitioner had constructed some shops which were adjacent to the shop in dispute. This also could not give rise to vacancy in the case of commercial accommodation. Acquisition of another accommodation is a ground of vacancy only in the case of residential building. I have held in Khursheeda vs. A.D.J. 2004 (2) A.R.C.64 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Rent of Rs. 5/- per month for a shop in Saharanpur is virtually as well as actually no rent. By paying such a highly inadequate rent for several decades petitioner must have saved a lot of money. Money saved is money earned. Accordingly it is directed that with effect from February,2006 onwards petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord @ 750/- per month. If there is any dispute of landlord ship then rent at the above rate may be deposited by the tenant under section 30(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Case law discussed: 2004(2) ARC 64 (Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.) 1. List revised. No one appears for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This case illustrates utter abuse of the Ret Control Act by the tenant. It is most unfortunate that tenant-petitioner happens to be a lawyer. Lawyers are expected to show more regard towards law than ordinary people. 3. Accommodation in dispute is commercial in nature. Petitioner is a lawyer, practicing on the taxation side, hence he must be earning good income, Rent is Rs. 5/- per month. The said rent is also not being paid by the petitioner on the ground that some persons are quarrelling for landlord ship. This is excellent situation for the tenantpetitioner. the last nail in the coffin is the fact that in this writ petition landlord has not been impleaded as party. Petitioner who is tenant and respondent no. 2 Dhan Prakash, applicant for allotment are fighting for the tenanted shop and landlord is watching the drama from the gallery. 4. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.10.1992 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/District Supply Officer, Saharanpur in case no. 53 of 1990. Rent 92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 Control and Eviction Officer by the impugned order declared the vacancy on the ground that shop in dispute was not being used by the petitioner. In my opinion, the order is illegal. Even if a commercial accommodation is not being used. It does not give rise to vacancy under any of the provisions of Section 12 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Rent Control and eviction Officer also found that petitioner had constructed some shops which were adjacent to the shop in dispute. This also could not give rise to vacancy in the case of commercial accommodation. Acquisition of another accommodation is a ground of vacancy only in the case of residential building. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment and order declaring vacancy is set aside. 6. I have held in Khursheeda vs. A.D.J. 2004 (2) A.R.C.64 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Rent of Rs. 5/- per month for a shop in Saharanpur is virtually as well as actually no rent. By paying such a highly inadequate rent for several decades petitioner must have saved a lot of money. Money saved is money earned. Accordingly it is directed that with effect from February,2006 onwards petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord @ 750/- per month. If there is any dispute of landlord ship then rent at the above rate may be deposited by the tenant under section 30(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29283 of 1994 B.S. Negi ...Petitioner Versus General Manager, Syndicate Bank and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.K. Jain Sri Hari Om Khare Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P.K. Singhal S.C. Constitution of India, Art.-226appointment based on false declarationbelonging to a caste of 'Naik'-as S.T. Community-petitioner given certificate issued by Tehsildar Garh MukteshwarRegional office of Bank on the basis of information from-SC/ST commissionshow cause notice issued-after reply the disciplinary authority held guilty of false declaration caste held-appointment based on false caste certificate-such employee deserves no sympathypunishment of dismissal-held proper. Held: Para 10 & 11 From the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court it is clear that where it is found that the petitioner does not belong to the caste indicated by him while seeking appointment then the very basis of his appointment is taken away and such appointment is no appointment in the eye of law and such a person also does not deserve any sympathy and indulgence of the Courts.