1962 (4) TMI 126 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the lease executed on July 31, 1958.
2. Jurisdiction of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to review or cancel orders.
3. Nature of the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on January 17, 1959.
4. Jurisdiction of the State Government to restore a void order.
5. Validity of the sub-lease executed on October 12, 1958.
6. Rights of the appellant under the lease and sub-lease.
7. Locus standi of the appellant to maintain the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the lease executed on July 31, 1958:
The appellant argued that the lease executed by respondent No. 3 on July 31, 1958, was a valid lease, making the appellant legally a tenant of the accommodation. The court assumed the lease's validity for argument's sake but noted that the lease was executed in violation of a general order under Section 7(2) of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, and thus rendered the execution of the lease a criminal offense under Section 8 of the Act.

2. Jurisdiction of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to review or cancel orders:
The court held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to review or cancel the quasi-judicial order made on January 17, 1959, under Section 7(2) of the Act. The order of February 19, 1959, reviewing and canceling the January 17, 1959, order was void and ineffective. The State Government also had no power or jurisdiction to restore the void order.

3. Nature of the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on January 17, 1959:
The court determined that the order of January 17, 1959, was a quasi-judicial order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had to decide several questions, including whether the accommodation was new or old, whether the Act applied to it, whether respondent No. 3 was liable for prosecution under Section 8, and whether Shamsher Bahadur was liable to eviction under Section 7-A. These questions required the officer to act in a judicial or quasi-judicial manner.

4. Jurisdiction of the State Government to restore a void order:
The court held that the State Government had no jurisdiction to restore a void order passed without jurisdiction. The State Government's order of February 8, 1960, restoring the February 19, 1959, order was without jurisdiction and was rightly quashed by the learned single Judge.

5. Validity of the sub-lease executed on October 12, 1958:
The sub-lease executed by the appellant in favor of Shamsher Bahadur was invalid and ineffective as it was made in defiance of the provisions of the Act, specifically Section 7(3). The Full Bench decision cited by the appellant did not apply to this sub-lease as it directly offended a provision of the Act itself.

6. Rights of the appellant under the lease and sub-lease:
The appellant's rights under the lease dated July 31, 1958, and the sub-lease dated October 12, 1958, were extinguished by the valid order of January 17, 1959, directing respondent No. 3 to let out the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur. The appellant had no legal contractual relationship with the accommodation after the January 17, 1959, order.

7. Locus standi of the appellant to maintain the appeal:
The court noted that the appellant had no locus standi to maintain the appeal as it had submitted to the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated March 19, 1959. The appellant did not prefer any revision to the State Government against this order and had no right to complain against the quashing of the State Government's order dated February 8, 1960.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming that the appellant had no right to claim any relief in the special appeal. The court upheld the learned single Judge's decision to quash the State Government's order and restore the order of January 17, 1959, allotting the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur.