Skip to content


Roop NaraIn and ors. Vs. Radha Mohan Katiyar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ No. 1871 of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1980All76
ActsUttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 21; Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules - Rule 15(2)
AppellantRoop NaraIn and ors.
RespondentRadha Mohan Katiyar and ors.
Appellant AdvocateK.M. Dayal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateP.C. Goutam, Adv.
Excerpt:
tenancy - release of tenanted house - section 21 and sub-rule(2) of rule 15 of u.p. urban buildings (regulation of letting , rent and eviction) act, 1972 - application should be signed by all the co-landlords and not by all the co-owners. - .....a pro forma respondent in the application there is a difference between being a landlord and a co-owner. rule 15 (2) of the rules only requires that the application should be signed by all the co-landlords and not by all the co-owners. in the circumstances rule 15 (2) of the rules was fully complied with.6. there is yet another material circumstance in this case, namely, that santosh kumar had also moved an application supported by an affidavit before the prescribed authority that hewas supporting the application under section 21 of the act. even if for some reason there was some defect in the application when it was moved the said defect was cured when an application was moved supported by an affidavit by santosh kumar.7. in view of the above the submissions made by the learned counsel.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S.D. Agarwala, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18th Aug. 1977 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur.

2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present petition are that Roop Narain and Munna Lala moved an application for release of house No. 103/280, Colonelganj Kanpur. Radha Mohan Katiyar is the tenant. Santosh Kumar is the third co-owner of the said property. The application was moved by petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and Santosh Kumar was made a pro forma opposite party as he was the co-owner of the said property. The prescribed authority, after considering the material on record, held that the need of the landlords was genuine and as such the release application was allowed by order dated 28th May 1977, Radha Mohan Katiyar filed an appeal against the said order dated 28th May 1977. The appeal was allowed on the technical ground that the application under Section 21 of the U.P, Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act was not maintainable as Santosh Kumar was not an applicant and the application was barred by Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Act, hereinafter referred to as the Rules.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 15 Sub-clause (2) of the Rules was merely directory and as such the mere non-compliance thereof does not entitle the court to reject the application. His second submission is that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were the landlords, Santosh Kumar was only a co-owner, and as such it was not necessary that he should also have signed the application under Section 21 of the Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. In support of the first submission learned counsel has relied on two cases of this court: (1) Yogesh Saran v. Jyoti Prasad 1978 All Ren Cas 408, K.C. Agarwal, J. has held that mere omission to sign the application by all the landlords is only of a formal character and an application made by a landlord cannot be rejected on the said basis. (2) Girraj Singh v. Third Addl. Dist. Judge, 1979 (UP) RCC 329. A. N. Verma, J. has held that Rule 15 (2) applies only to those cases where all the co-landlords have joined in making of the application and the application has to be signed by those co-landlords who make the application and not by the non-petitioning landlords also and the other landlords can be made as pro forma respondents. The principles laid down in the above two cases fully apply to the instant case.

5. There is an additional circumstance in the present case. In the petition under Section 21 of the Act it was categorically stated that the petitioners Roop Narain and Munna Lala alone were the landlords. Santosh Kumar was no doubt a co-owner and was made a pro forma respondent in the application There is a difference between being a landlord and a co-owner. Rule 15 (2) of the Rules only requires that the application should be signed by all the co-landlords and not by all the co-owners. In the circumstances Rule 15 (2) of the Rules was fully complied with.

6. There is yet another material circumstance in this case, namely, that Santosh Kumar had also moved an application supported by an affidavit before the prescribed authority that hewas supporting the application under Section 21 of the Act. Even if for some reason there was some defect in the application when it was moved the said defect was cured when an application was moved supported by an affidavit by Santosh Kumar.

7. In view of the above the submissions made by the learned counsel has substance.

8. In the result I allow the petition, quash the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur dated 18th August 1977 and direct the Additional District Judge to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. In the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //