9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (4) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Act came into force. It appears that the respondent No. 3, after the modification of the accommodation, did not desire to occupy it itself and wanted to let it out. The respondent No. 3 did not, as required by Section 7 (1) of the Act, give intimation of the vacancy or intended vacancy to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and thereby rendered itself liable to prosecution under Section 8 of the Act. Without giving such information and without any allotment order having been passed in respect of this accommodation, the respondent No. 3, on July 31, 1958, executed a lease for three years in respect of this accommodation in favour of the appellant, Firm Property Agents. This lease provided for payment of a rent of ₹ 500 per month by the lessee and it also contained a clause for renewal of the lease for a further period of three years. It may be mentioned here that this lease deed was executed by respondent No. 3 but it was not signed by or on behalf of the appellant. On October 12, 1958, the appellant executed a sub-lease of this accommodation in favour of Shamsher Bahadur, for five years at a rent of ₹ 1,650 per month. It is important to notice that even at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent No. 3 and of Shamsher Bahadur, the respondent No. 3, on February 17, 1959, wrote to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer bringing to his notice the fact that it had leased out the accommodation on July 31, 1958, to the appellant and that the appellant had sublet the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur and prayed that the allotment order be amended by ordering the appellant to sublet the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur. On the same day the appellant also wrote to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer bringing to his notice the fact about the lease and the sub-lease and praying that the sub-letting may be legalised by amending the allotment order and directing it to sublet the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur. Without giving any notice to Shamsher Bahadur and without giving him any opportunity of being heard, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by order, dated February 19, 1959, cancelled the previous order of January 17, 1959, and under Section 7 (3) of the Act directed that the accommodation be sublet to Shamsher Bahadur by the appellant. No order allotting the accommodation under Section 7 (2) of the Act in favour of the appellant as tenant was ever passed. When Sham ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 8, 1960, under Section 7-F of the Act, submitted to the order of the learned single Judge and the appellant alone filed this special appeal. 3. The learned single Judge held that the accommodation was not a new construction and was governed by the provisions of the Act, that the lease, dated July 31, 1958, as well as the sub-lease, dated October 12, 1958, were void as having been made in contravention of the provisions of the Act and that the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 7 (3) of the Act or to restore an order passed under Section 7 (3) of the Act. In this view he quashed the order of the State Government restoring the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed under Section 7 (3) of the Act and restored the order passed under Section 7 (2) of the Act by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotting the accommodation in favour of Shamsher Bahadur. After Jagdish Swarup had argued the case for a day on behalf of the appellant and after we had tentatively indicated that since respondent No. 3, at whose instance the State Government had passed the order in revision, had submitted to the quashing of that order by the learned singl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for deciding whether an order is quasi-judicial order or an administrative order. The decisions of the Supreme Court have laid down that if any one of the following three conditions are satisfied the order made by an administrative or executive authority would be a quasi-judicial order: (i) When there is a lis between the parties; (ii) When the authority is required by the statute or by the rules to act in a judicial or quasi-judicial manner; and (iii) When the nature of the duties and functions to be exercised by the authority are such that they cannot but be exercised in a judicial or quasi-judicial manner. In the present case it is unnecessary for us to decide whether every order of allotment under Section 7 (2) of the Act would be a quasi-judicial order or not. We have to see whether the order passed in the present case was a quasi-judicial order or not. There are several decisions of this Court where it has been held that an order under Section 7 (2) passed in cases where applications under Rule 4 or 6 have been made is a quasi-judicial order. In the present case at the time of the making of the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction to review or cancel that order. It necessarily follows from this that his order of February 19, 1959, superseding the first order and replacing it by an order directing the appellant to sublet the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur was an order without jurisdiction and was wholly void. That being so, it was not competent for the State Government to restore a void order passed without jurisdiction and such an order of the State Government itself was without jurisdiction. In Ram Chander v. Mohan Lal Tewari (: 1954 All LJ 223 : AIR 1954 All 457), it was laid down that where the order of allotment is invalid and has been passed by a person having no authority to pass such an order, the restoration of such order by the State Government would not make it a valid order liable to be enforced. We entirely agree with this view and hold that the State Government had no jurisdiction to restore the order made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on February 19, 1959, and to make it valid. Accordingly, the learned single Judge rightly quashed the order of the State Government. 7. The matter may be looked at from another angle. Though the Full Bench of this Court in (: 1963 All LJ 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and passed an order under Section 7 (3) of the Act purporting to grant permission to the appellant to sublet the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur. In the last order which he passed on March 19, 1959, he again made an order under Section 7 (2) directing respondent No. 3 to let out the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur and refused to grant permission under Section 7 (3) to the appellant to sublet the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur. Under Section 7-F of the Act a revision lay to the State Government against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer requiring the respondent No. 3 to let the accommodation to Shamsher Bahadur but no revision lay against the order refusing to grant permission under Section 7 (3) to the appellant to sublet the accommodation. As such, this part of the order of March 19, 1959, by which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer refused to grant permission under Section 7 (3) to the appellant to sublet the accommodation became final and could not be revised by the State Government and possibly for this very reason the appellant did not prefer any revision to the State Government. In the revision filed by the respondent No. 3 the only question which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment purporting to do so was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed. 8. One other aspect, that needs to be taken notice of, is that this special appeal has been filed by the Firm Property Agents who claimed to be lessees of this accommodation and not by the owners Firm Ganesh Das Ram Gopal. As indicated above, the appellant claims interest in this accommodation on the basis of a lease purported to have been executed by the proprietors on July 31, 1958. That lease was executed in contravention of a general order made by the District Magistrate of Lucknow under Section 7(2) of the Act and, consequently, the execution of this lease amounted to the commission of a criminal offence punishable under Section 8 of the Act. The Full Bench decision of this Court: in (: 1963 All LJ 406 : AIR 1964 All 1 (FB)), relied upon by the appellant, holds that such a lease is valid and binding between the lessor and the lessee, but in this case even that is doubtful because the lease was not signed by any one on behalf of the appellant and was executed by the lessor alone, so, that it did not even satisfy the requirements of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellant purporting to have ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... othing to show that the appellant at that stage put forward any grievance against the order, dated March 19, 1959, or even supported the case of Finn Ganesh Dass Ham Gopal in that behalf. The appellant in not making any move against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, dated March 19, 1959, thus submitted to that order. Firm Ganesh Dass Ram Gopal were the only party who complained against it to the Government. The Government then passed the order, dated February 8, 1960, on the basis of the revision filed by the Firm Ganesh Dass Ram Gopal and now that order has been vacated by the learned Single Judge. That order of February 8, 1960, was not obtained from the Government at the instance of the appellant, who had submitted to the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, dated March 19, 1959, and consequently, it is not now for the appellant to make a grievance in this special appeal that the learned Single Judge has quashed the order of the State Government, dated February 8, 1960, and made orders the result of which is that either the valid order of January 17, 1959, or the order, dated March 19, 1959, to which the appellant had submitted, would now be the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
