# Smt. Champa Devi & another v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer(1st) & another

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 196
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-01-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33653 of 1996
- **Bench:** D.S. Sinha, Lakshmi Bihari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-champa-devi-another-v-rent-control-and-eviction-officer-1st-another-39791
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972-U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent
and Eviction) Act 1972-whether the
proceeding
pending
before
the
enactment of U.P. act No. 5 of 1995 will
effect the proceeding pending on the
date of enforcement of the amended Act.
Held - No.

Held-Para 4

Accordingly, the answer to the question
referred would be that clause (g) to
Section 2 of the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation
of
Letting,
Rent
and
eviction) Act, 1972, inserted in the Act
by Section 2 of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995,
will not affect the proceeding pending on
the date of enforcement of U.P. Act No.5
of 1995.

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
196
approval
of
the
U.P.
Co-operative
Industrial Service Board. This letter was
amended on 22.03.1999 vide Annexure-5
to the writ petition. The petitioner joined
as
Manager (Law) at Banda vide
Annexure-6 to the writ petition and he has
been working on that post and was
granted increment vide Annexure-7 to the
writ petition. However, by order dated
19.07.2001 and 19.06.2001 Annexure-9
and 10 to the writ petition the petitioner
was reverted to the post of Accountant. It
is alleged that this was done without
giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. Aggrieved this writ petition has
been filed.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed
in which it was stated in the paragraph5
that the appointment of persons dying in
harness can only be considered for group
- 'C' and 'D' post which are outside the
purview of Public Service Commission
vide G.O. dated 30.11.1989 AnnexureC.A.-1 to the counter affidavit. In
paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it is
stated that the petitioner's appointment
was only temporary and ad hoc and
subject to the approval of the Service
Institutional Board and the Board did not
approve petitioner's appointment even on
ad hoc basis as Manager (Law). True
copy of the letter dated 11.07.2001 of the
Board in this connection is Annexure
C.A.-3 to the counter affidavit. In
paragraph 9 it is stated that the petitioner
was not neither eligible nor qualified for
the post of Manager (Law) which is a
group - 'B' post. In paragraph 11 of the
counter affidavit it is stated that the
petitioner has been appointed as Assistant
Accountant in accordance with the
relevant Rules.

5. In our opinion, the petitioner has
no right to be appointment as Manager
(Law) under the Dying in Harness Rules.
The service conditions of the respondent
bank are governed by the U.P. cooperative Societies Service Regulations,
1975 according to which no appointment
can be made in the bank without approval
of U.P. Co-operative Institutional Board.
Since the Board did not give approval to
the petitioner's appointment, obviously
the petitioner had no right to get the
appointment. The ad hoc appointment of
the petitioner as Manager (Law) does not
give him any right to the post. Moreover
as held by the Supreme court in State of
Bihar Vs. Samsuz Zotia A.I.R. 1996 SC
1961 an applicant for compassionate
appointment does not have any right to
claim a particular appointment. In our
opinion, the post of Manager (Law) falls
in class-II category, Hence the petitioner
has no right for appointment to the post
under Dying in Harness Rules.

6. The petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.S. SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE LAKSHMI BIHARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33653 of 1996

Smt. Champa Devi and another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Rent Control and Eviction Officer (1st),
Allahabad and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners:
Sri R.N. Singh
Sri Anand Kumar Gupta
Sri K.L. Grover
1All] Smt. Champa Devi & another V. Rent Control and Eviction Officer(1st) & another
197
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.N. Verma,
Sri V.N. Agrawal,
S.C.

U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972-U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent
and Eviction) Act 1972-whether the
proceeding
pending
before
the
enactment of U.P. act No. 5 of 1995 will
effect the proceeding pending on the
date of enforcement of the amended Act.
Held - No.

Held-Para 4

Accordingly, the answer to the question
referred would be that clause (g) to
Section 2 of the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation
of
Letting,
Rent
and
eviction) Act, 1972, inserted in the Act
by Section 2 of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995,
will not affect the proceeding pending on
the date of enforcement of U.P. Act No.5
of 1995.

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.S. Sinha, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.N. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate, appearing for the
petitioners, Sri S.N. Verma, learned
Senior
Advocate,
representing
the
respondent No. 2 and Sri V.N. Agrawal,
learned Standing Counsel of the State of
U.P. appearing for the respondent No.1
Sri K.L. Grover, learned Senior Advocate,
appearing for the petitioner in connected
Writ Petition no. 27958 of 1998, Punjab
National Bank Vs. VI Addl. District
Judge, Gorakhpur and others, has also
been heard.

2. Following question of law, on
reference by a learned Single Judge, is up
for consideration before this bench:

"Whether clause (g) to Section 2 of
the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
(herein after referred to as U.P. Act No.13
of 1972) which has been inserted in the
Principal Act. by Section 2 of U.P. Act
No. 5 of 1995 will affect the proceedings
pending on the date of enforcement of
U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995?."

3. The learned counsels appearing
for the parties agree and submit that the
question referred by the learned Single
Judge has been conclusively answered by
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India rendered in M/S Ambalal
Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Versus M/S.
Amrit Lal & Co. Anr., reported in
Judgments Today 2001 (7) S.C. at page
477, and in the light of this decision, the
answer to the question has to be in
negative.

4. Accordingly, the answer to the
question referred would be that clause (g)
to Section 2 of the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 inserted in the Act by Section 2
of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995, will not affect
the proceedings pending on the date of
enforcement of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995.

5. Let the record of this case and
other cases clubbed with this case be
transmitted to the appropriate Bench for
decision in the light of the answer
recorded above.
---------
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
198
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.R. YADAV, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 231 of 2002

Chandrajit Raj Bhar

...Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan
S.C.

U.P. Panchayat Raj Act-section 95 (1)
(g) the preliminary enquiry was not held
by the District Panchayat Raj officer
under the statutory Rules 1997 nor the
explanation of the petitioner was called
for and considered by District Magistrate
before passing the impugned orders as
envisaged under section 95 (1) (g) of the
said Act-the orders impugned are perse
illegal (Held in Para 11.)

In the present case, the order impugned
passed by District Magistrate depriving
the petitioner from his financial and
administrative powers and functions and
appointment
of
three
members
Committee is founded on a report
submitted by the Assistant Engineer
PWD, Pilibhit. Which is perse illegal
within the meaning of Rules 2 (c), 4 and
5 of the Rules of 1997. The District
Magistrate has no jurisdiction to deny
reasonable opportunity of showing cause
to the petitioner before passing the
impugned order as envisaged under
second proviso of Section 95 (1) (g) of
Act of 1947.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.R. Yadav. J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2. Perused the averments made in
the Writ Petition.

3. The present petition is posted
today for admission. but with the consent
of the learned counsel for the parties I
propose to decide it on merits at
admission stage.

4. By filing the instant writ petition
the petitioner is seeking a relief for
quashing the order impugned dated
2.11.2001
(Annexure-8
to
the
writ
petition) and order dated 26.12.2001
passed by the District Magistrate, Pilibhit
under Section 95 (I) (g) of U.P. Panchayat
Raj Act, a copy whereof is filed and
marked as Annexure 10 to the writ
petition, on the ground interalia that no
preliminary enquiry has been held against
him by District Panchayat Raj Officer
under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj
(Removal of Pradhans, Up. Pradhans and
Members)
Enquireis
Rules
1997
(hereinafter referred as Rules of 1997) to
arrive at a prima facie conclusion that he
has
committed
financial
and
other
irregularities and no opportunity of
showing cause has been afforded to him
against the action proposed within the
meaning of second proviso of Section 95
(1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. (herein
after referred as Act of 1947) which
provides that no action shall be taken
under clause (f) and clause (g) except
after giving to the body or person
concerned a reasonable opportunity of
showing
cause
against
the
action
proposed. By order dated 2.11.2001 the
petitioner is deprived of to perform his