Holding

The Court set aside the House Allotment Officer’s order and the High Court’s dismissal, holding that the appellant was not liable to be evicted and allowing the appeal.

Summary

The appellant, a former government telephone employee, had taken a house on lease in 1954 and continued to occupy it after retirement in 1967. Respondent S.P. Pathak applied to the House Allotment Officer for possession, alleging the appellant occupied the premises in violation of Clause 22(2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, and that the appellant was no longer entitled to stay as he had ceased to hold an office of profit. The appellant contended that he entered the house on a landlord’s assurance that the tenancy complied with Clause 23(2) and that no allotment order was made within the statutory 15‑day period, thus protecting him from liability. The Court held that the House Allotment Officer failed to examine the crucial question of whether the landlord had given the required intimation of vacancy and whether the assurance was valid, and that without an allotment order clause 25 could not be invoked. It further observed that the power under Clause 28 must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily after a long lapse of time. Consequently, the order of the House Allotment Officer and the High Court’s dismissal of the Special Civil Application were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant’s occupation of the premises contravened Clause 22(2) of the Rent Control Order in the absence of an allotment order.
Whether the landlord gave the statutory intimation of vacancy under Clause 22(1) and whether the 15‑day period elapsed, allowing the landlord to let the house under Clause 23(2).
Whether a former holder of an office of profit is liable to vacate under Clause 25 when no allotment order under Clause 23 or 24A exists.
Whether the House Allotment Officer’s exercise of power under Clause 28 was reasonable and within a reasonable time.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Bombay Land Revenue Codes. Section 211
Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949s. Clause 22, s. Clause 23, s. Clause 25, s. Clause 28
Constitution of Indias. Article 227
U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947s. Section 7, s. Section 7A

Subjects

Rent ControlLeaseGovernment servantOffice of profitEvictionStatutory dutyIntimation of vacancyAssuranceReasonable exercise of powerSpecial civil applicationArticle 227

Judgment

1M
MANSARAM
A
v.
S. P. PATHAK: AND OTHERS

September 29, 1983
B
[D. A. DESAI AND R. B. MISRA, JJ.!
Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order,
1949 Cls. 22, 23, and 25 Occupation of premises by Government servant under
cl. 23(2) on an assurance from landlord-Conditions to be satisfied before he can
be evicted for contravention of cl. 22(2). C
/'
-I
The appellant Who had taken the premises in·question on lease while he
was serving as an employee of the .Telephone Department, continued to be iD
possession of the same after his retirement in 1967. Respondent No. 1 who
was allegedly in need of accommodation; filed an application before the House
Allotment Officer praying for allotment of the said premises in his favour on D
the ground that the appellant had occupied the premises in contravention of
cl. 22(2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent
Control Order, 1949 and that respondent No. 4 who had inherited the premises
from the original landlord was conspiring with the app_ellant by letting him
continue to live in the premises. Respondent No. 4, after having Once appeared
through advocate, withdrew from the proceedings. The appellant contended
that he had not contravened any provision of the Rent Control Order as he E
had occupied the premises on the assurance given by the then landlord that
the house was being permitted to be occupied in accordance with st 23(2)
thereuf, that the deceased landlord who had tried to Obtain possession of the
premises during his lifetime on the ground of bona- fide personal requirement
had failed in the attempt and that he had been accepted as the tenant even
after his retirement.· The House Allotment Officer rejected the contention and
directed the appella:rit to deliver possession of the premises to respondent No. 4 F
holding that the appellan:t was liable to be evicted as the letting out of the
premises to him by the landlord and his occupation of the same in 1954; were
in contravention of cl. 22(1) (b) and cl. 22(2) respectively of the Rent Control
Order and further, that having occupied the premises while holding an office
t of profit under the Union of India the appellant was not entitled to continue
to remain in occupation of the premises after his retirement from service. The G
High Court having dismissed in limine the Special Civil Application filed by
him under Art. 227, the appellant apprqached this Court.

Allowing the appeal ,

HELD: I. According to cl. 22(1) of the C.P. and Berar Letting ol H
Houses and Rent Control Order~ 1949, a landlord is under a statutory duty to
intimate the Collector any existing or impending vacancy in the premises of
Which he is the landlord. The object underlying the provision is"'- to make
Stii>ii.EME COURT REPORTS [1984) i s.<'.ii..

residential accommodation available to a specified class of persons mentioned
A in cl. 23 which includes a person holding an office of profit tinder the Union
or State Government or a displaced or an evicted person. The Collector can
allot the premises "in respect of which he has received arl intin1ation of vacancy
under ct' 22, to anyone belonging to this specified class and none else. The
very enumeration of the class would show that theSe are persons who cannot
tJe left to the vagaries of tLe law of demand and supply of residential accom-
1nodation. It may be that, at any given point of time, no one from the speci-
B fied class may be on the waiting list, and therefore cl. 23(2) permits the land-
lord to let out such premises to any person if, after 15 days from the date 1 of
intimation of vacancy to the Collector, an order ·of allotment i_s not served
upon the landlord. As a sequel to the right to obtain allotment on the ground
of beirig the holder of an-office of profit under Union or State Government, a
corresponding obligation iS cast by cl. 25 upon such person -to vacate the
c ,Pr-emises as soon as he ceases to hold the office or the post which enabled him
to obtain the order of allotment.. 'fhe legal liability of giving intimation of
vacancy is squarely on the landlord and if he has given su.ch intimation and )
the statutory limit of 15 days for making an allotment order has expired, the
landlord can proceed to let out the premises to anyone. In such a"situation,
the only duty cast on the tenant is to seek an assurance from the landlcird that
the premises are being permitted to be occuPied in accordance with cl. 23(2).
D [145 E-H; 146 A-B; 147 B-C]

In the inst<i11t case the order of the House Allotment -Officer is conspi~
cuously silent on the most reh-}vant question why the allegation of assurance
put forward by the appellant was not examined by him and why it was rejected
sub silentio. It was incumbent upon him to e~quire whether the deceased
landlord had given intimation of vacancy ·and whether any allotment order
E h_ad been issued within the pe_riod of 15 days from the date of receipt of such
intimation. The non-application of mind by the quasi-judicial authority to
this relevant point goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the order. It·
was obligatory upon respondent No. 4, who Wal the successor-in-interes.t of
the landlord, to prove that ,no such assurance 'had ever been given to the
appellant. Instead, the respondent No. 4 remained absent. Even _assuming
that the landlord gave a false assurance in 1954 to the appellantt if the
appellant bona-fide relied upon such assurance and it was not shown that the .
appellant was in league with the landlord, he cannot be accused of entering the
premises iq contravention of cl. 23(2). The High Court was in error in
rejecting in limine the petition under -Art. 227. The points raised by the
appellant merited a reasoned decision or, at le1st, a speaking order briefly
indicatin-g why the contentions put forward by the appellant did not find
G favour with the High Court. [148 G; 147 D;.148 H; E; 147 F-G; 143 G-H]

2. Jn order to attract cl. 25 which obligates the holder of an office of
profit to vacate the premises on his ceasing to hold the office of profit, it must
be sh.own that he entered the premises under an order of allotment made by
the Collector eit~er under cl. 23 or under cl. 24-A. [149 BJ
H
In the instant case, in the ·absence of an allotment .order, it was not '
open to the House Allotment Officer to draw an inference that, the premises
were alloted to the appellant because he W<lS holding an office of profit. [149 D(
MANSARAM v. S.P. PATHAK (Desai, J.) 141
(
I 3. Where power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be
exroised in a reasonable manner and the reasonable exercise of power inheres A
its exercise within a reasonable time. (150 F]

/"'\ In the instant case, power is conferred on the Collector by cl. 28 to see
· hat the provisions of the Rent Conti'ol Order, which disclose a public policy,
are effectively implemented and, therefore, if he comes across information that
thereJs a contravention, he is clothed with adequate power io set right the
B
contravention by ejecting a,nyone -who comes into the premises in contraven-
tion of the provisions. No limitation is prescribed in this behalf. But, eve'n
if the House Allotinent ·officer were to reach the affirmative conclusioll that
the initial entry of appellant into the premises 22 years back was an u~autho
rised entry and that failure to vacate premises till nine years after-retirement
was not proper yet it was not obligatory upon him to pass a peremptory order
of eviction in the manner in which he has done~ It was open to him not to
evict the tenant. [150 E-F; G-H]
c
Mur/idhar Aggarwal & Anr. v. SJ ate of U.P. & Ors., [1975] 1 S.C.R.
575 and State ofGujarqt v. Patel Raghav Natha and Ors., [1970] l· S.C.R. 335;
referred to.

4. The aopellant had entered the premises in 1954 and there had been D
numerous proceedings between him and the deceased landlord; but no one had
ever raised the question whether the appellant had entered the premises in
contravention of cl. 22(2). This would per.dlit an inference that the then
landlord had accepted the appellant as his tenant and his tena~~Y did not
suffer from any infirmity. ReS?ondent No. _4 who is the successor in interest
· of the deceased landlord did not raise any controversy about the occupation
of the premhes by the ap;:iellant and rent was accepted without question before E
and after the death of the original landlord. [149 G-H; 150 A-CJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JuRtSDICTJON : Civil Appeal No. 1262 (N)
of 1978.

Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Ordet dated F
the 4th July, 1978 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in
Special Civil Application No. 1957 of 1977.
+ G. L. Sanghi, B. Datta, V. A Baby Shyam Mudaliar and B.
P. Singh for the Appellant.
G
B. R. Agarwal, P. G. Gokhale and Miss Vijaya/akshmi for the
Respondent.

.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
DESAI, J., Appellant Shri Mansaram son of Shri Chanduram
.Sharma was serving in the telephone office at Naspur and was th~
142 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1984l 1 s.c.R.

holding an,dllce ofprofitunder the •Union of India. He took on
A lease premises on a ·monthly rent of Rs. 75 per month, more parti·
cularly described in the application made to the House Allotment
Officer, Nagpur by first respondent Shri S. P. Pathak, from the then•
owner of the.premises one Shri 1jasantrai Sharma. He continued
to be in possession even after his retirement from service in 1967.
Shri Basantrai Sharma died and there .js a dispute. between respon-
B dents 3 and 4 and Shri Prabhakar about succession to the estate of
the deceased Shri Basantrai Sharma. Respondents 3 and 4 claimed
to-be the legatees under a will of deceased Shri Basantrai Sharma.
Respondent No. I S)lri S. P. Pathak made an application to House
Allotment Officer, Nagpur registered as .Miscellaneous Case No.
c 51/A-71(2)/76-77 against the present appellant Mansaram alleging
that the appellant had occupied the premises involved . in the dispute
in contravention of rnb-cl. (2) of Clause 22 of the Central Provinces
and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control· Order, 1949 ('Rent
Control Order' for short), in that he occupied the premises to which
D Chapter III of the Rent Control Order applies w\ithout obtaining an
order under sub-cl. (I) of Clause- 23 or Clause 24 or without an
assurance from the landlord that the premises are being permitted
to be occupied in accordance with sub-cl. (2) of Clause 23. To this
petition, respondent 4 Smt. Usha Rani N. Sharma was also impleaded
E as a respondent but after having once appeared through advocate,
she did not prefer to remain present, along with her counsel and the
House Allotment Officer proceeded against her ex parte. In the
application made by Shri S. P. Pathak, 1st respondent on December
7, 1976, it was in terms stated that the appellant Shri Mansaram
Sharma was a Government servant employed in the telephone
F department at Nagpur and the appellant has now retired from
.service and therefore, is not entitled to retain .the. demised pre•
mises. It was further alleged that the former owner of the premises
Shri Basantrai Sharma has died. The premises have been inherited
by respondent 4 Smt. Usha Rani N. Sharma and she and the tenant
Mansaram· Sharma have conspired together and are violating the
G provision of Jaw by letting Shri Mansaram Sharma to continue to
Jive in the premises. It was further alleged that the appellant
Shri S. P. Pathak was badly in need of premises and therefore, the
pr~mises may be allotted to him.

H
Appellant Shri Mansram Sharma appeared and filed a written
statement inter alia contending that he occupied the premises on the
a,ssurance ,~iven br t)le then landlord Shri Basautrai Sjiarma th;it
MANSARAM v. S.P. PATHAK (Desai, J.) 143

,-the house.is being permitted to be occupied in accordance with
sub-cl. (2) of Clause 23. It was further contended that in a pro- A
ceeding under the Rent Control Order, that late Shri Basantrai
Sharma, the decea~ed landlord, .had sought possession of the pre-
mises on the gro~nd of bona ·fide personal requirement but he had
Jost the same. It .was further l!lleged . that Shd S. P. Pathak is a
near relation of Shri Basantrai Sharma and that he has ·been put
B
forward by Smt. Usha Rani N. Sharma for seeking a collusive order.
.It wasforther alleged that it is incorrect to say that he occupied the
house under any allotment order. It was further stated that since
his retirement in July, 1967, he has been accepted as tenant and
therefore, no proceeding can be taken against him under Clause 28
of the Rent Control Order for alleged contravention of clause 22. c
The .House Allotment Officer held that Shri Basantrai Sharma
Jet out the premises to the appellant in the year 1954 in contraven-
tion of clause 22(1) (b) of the Rent Control Order and the appellant
occupied the premises in contravention of clause 22(2) .of the Rent D
Control Order and therefore, he was liable to be evicted under clause
28. It was further held that the appellant had occupied the pre-
mises when be was holding an office of profit under the Union of
India and now that he has retired, he is not. entitled to continue in
the premises and therefore, also he is liable to be evicted. Accor-
dingly, the House Allotment Officer by his order dated November 2,
I 977 gave a direction to the appellant to vacate the premises within
a fortnight from the communciation of the order and deliver the
possession of the premises to -Smt. ·Usha Rani N. Sharma failing
which action will be taken under clause 28(1) of the Rent ·Control
.Order.
F
{\ppe!lant filed a Sp~cial Civil ~pplication )'lo. 1957 of1977
before ,the Nagpur Bench of' the Bombay High Court. A learned
$ingle Judge dismissed ,the ·p~tition in limine. Hence this appeal
,by special leave.
G.
At .the outset, we ~ust confess that .th,e learned Single Judge
,was comp]etely in error injecting ,the· petition under Art. ·221 of the
Constitution in limine b.ecause various point~ raised by the appellant
a.re .suqb that atleast a reasoned dec.ision by .the High Court was a
must or atleast a speaking order briefly showing why .these conten- H
tions. did not .:f\nd favour with the High Co.urt. At one stage, we
wQre toying with the id~a to remit t~ ·lllat.\er .to the High Court but
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 1 s.c.R.

· that would merely be further &laying the already over delayed
proceedings.

\
Order 22 of tlle Rent Control Order reads as Under :

"22(1)-Every landlord of a house situated in an
B area to which this Chapter extends, shall-

(a) within seven days from the date of the extention of
this chapter, if the house is vacant on such date; or

(b) within seven days froin the date on which the land-
c lord becomes finally aware that the house will
become vacant or available for occupation by himself -. ·-
or for other occupation on or about a specified date;
give intimation of this fact to the Collector of the
district in which the area is included or such other
D officer as may be specified by him, in the Form
given in the Schedule appended to this Order, and
shal.l not let or occupy the house except in accor·
dance with sub-clause (2) of clause 23."

(2) No person shall occupy any house .in respect of
E which this chapter applied except under an order under
sub-clause (1) of clause 23 .or clause 24 or on an assu·
ranee from the landlord that the house is being permitted
to be occupied in accordance with sub-clause (2) of
clause 23." ·

F Clause 23 provides that within fifteen days from the date or'receipt
of intimation of vacancy under Clause 22, the· Collector may order
the landlord to let the vacant premises to any person holding an
office of profit under the Union or the .State Government or !O any
person holding a post under the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board ·
or to displaced person or to an evicted person· and thereupon not
G withstanding any agreement to the contrary, the landlord shall let
·the house to such person and place him ii:t possession thereof
immediately, if it is vacant or as soon as it becomes vacant. There
:is a proviso to clause 23 which provides that simultaneously while
H giving intimation o( .the vacancy. if the landlord intimates to the
·Collector that be needs the house which has fallen vacant or is likely
to fall vacant for his occupation, the Collector shall, if satisfied
<1fter gue enquiry that the house is so needed, permit the landlord
MANSAl\AM v. S.P. PATHAK (Desai, J.) 145

to occupy the same. This proviso is not relevant ·for ·the present
purpose. Sub-clause (2) of Clause 23 provides that if no order is passed A
and served upon the landlord within the period specified in sub-clause
(\), he shall be free to let the· vacant house to any person. Clause
25 provides that where a person is allotted the premises an~ is put
in possession thereof by an order under clause 23 or 24 A, his tenancy
shall stand terminated amongst others on the date from which he B
ceases to hold an office of profit under Union or a State Government
etc. and such person shall vacate such premises within seven days
of such date and the landlord an!! tile tenant shall. give the inti•
mation about the same as prescribed in clause 22 to the Collector in
respect of such premises. There is··~ proviso which confers power
on the Collector to extend the tena,pcy by a period not exceeding c
four montlk Clause 28 c~nfers power on the Coliector to effecti·
vely carry out the duty and obligation cast on him under Chapter
UI. Clause 28 reads as under :
~ .
... -· "28.(1)-The Collector may take or cause to be taken D
such steps anCI use or cause to be used. such force as
may~ in his opinion, be reasonably necessary for the
purpose_ofsecuring compliance with, or· for 'preventing
or rectifying any contravention of this Order or for the
effective exercise of such power."

The relevant provisions noticed hereinbefore will show that
the landlord is under a statutory duty to intimate the existing or
impending vacancy in the p;emises of which he is the landlord to
the Collector (clause 22(1)}. The object underlyingthe provision is
to make available residential accommodation to the Collector for
allotting the same to a specified class of persons set out .in claus_e 23.
This class c:omprises any person holdiQg an· office of profit under
-the Union or State Government or any person holding a post
under the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, or a displaced
· person or an evicted person. . The Collector can allot the premises in
respect of which he has received an intimation of vacancy under G
clause 22, to anyone belonging to the specified class atid none else.
The_ very enumeration of the class would show that these are pers0ns
who cannot be left to the vagaries of the law of demand and supply
of residential accommodation and they are required to be assisted in
B
this behalf for· efficient performance of public service or one.who.is
roofless on account of being a displaced person or evicted person.
lt may be that at any ~iven J?Oint . <;>f time, no one froIU class fo~
146 . SUPREM& COURT REPORTS . (1984) 1 s.c.i\.

whose benefit power is conferred on the Collector to allot vacant
A premises may be on the waiting list and therefore, sub-clause (2) of
clause 23 permits the landlord to let out such premises in respect of
which he has intimated a vacancy to any person if. within fifteen
days from the date of intimation of vacancy to the Collector, an Ji.
order of allotment is not served upon the landlord. As a sequel to ""
the right to obtain allotment on the ground of being holder of office .
B of profit under Union· or State Government a corresponding obli-
gation is cast upon such person to .vacate the premises as soon as he
ceases to bold office or the post which enabled him to obtain the
order ~f allotment. To give full eJfoct to these provisions, power is
conferred on the Collector to take appropriate action to enforce
c provisions of clauses 22 to 27. •

-
The application made by 1st respondent Shri S. P. Pathak on
Detember 7, 1976 to the H<:>use Allotment Officer complained of
appellant not vacating the premises even thongli he has ceased to _
hold the office of profit. There was not the slightest complaint that •
D when the appellant entered the premises in 1954, either he did it
under an order of allotment made by the Collector or.surreptitiously
or in league with the then landlord Shri Basantrai Sharma or in
violation of the mandatory requirement of Clause· 22. Yet the
House Allotment Officer proceeded to enquire as to whether clause
E 22(1) (b) and· 22(i) were contravened when the appellant entered the
premises in 1954•
.. The first question that should engage our attention is whether
the House Allotment Officer wasright in holding that there• was any

• contravention of clauses 22(-1) (b) and 22(2) of the Rent Control
Order at the time when appellant entered the premises· In 1954. It_.-
is necessary to focus attention on the contention of the appellant
in this behalf. He contended in the written statement that he
entered the · premises on an assurance from the landlord that the
premises were being permitted to be occupied in accordance with .
G sub-clause (2) of clause 23, which permits the landlord to let out the
premises to whomsoever he considers proper if he has not received
an allotment order from the Collector. within fifteen days from the
date of the receipt of the intimation of vacancy under clause 22.
No record was produced by. the. applicant before the House Allot·
H ment Officer whether Shri Basantrai Sharma, who was then the
, landlord and the owner of the house intimated to the Collector that
a portion of the house which was then in his occupation was in·
t~n4ed (o be le\ o\lt. if!iere is iio\ one wor<,! in tlle · 9rder of tile
! MANSARAM v. S.P. PATHAK! (Desai, J.) 147
"1 House Allotment Officer as to how and in what circumstances
Shri · Basantrai Sharma, the then owner let out the premises to A
the appellant. If a landlord assures an incoming tenant that he has
complied with the provisions of clause 22, the tenant can enter the
premises without b!ling charged for having contravened sub clause
(2) of clause 22. The legal liability of giving intimation of vacancy
is squarely on the landlord as provided by clause 22. If the land· B
lord has given intimation of vacancy under clause 22 and· the statu•
tory limit of 15 days for making an allotment order has expired,
-the landlord on his own can proceed to let out the premises in
respect of which he has sent the intimation of vacancy to anyone he
chooses to accept as tenant. In such a situation, the only duty cast
on the tenant is to seek an assurance from the . landlord that the c
premises are being Permitted to be occupied in accordance with
sub7clause (2) of clause 23. The appellant specifically contended
that he entered the premises on such an assurance from the land·
lord. In this :state of pleading, it was incumbent upon the House
Allotment Officer to enquire whether deceased Basantrai Sharma D
had given intimation of vacancy and whether any allotment order
was issued within the period of 15 days from the date of the receipt
of the intimation of it. If it was found that deceased Basantrai
Sharma bad given an intimation of vacancy and that no allotment
order was issued within 15 days from the receipt of the same and
that he gave an assurance to the appellant that the premises are being E
permitted to be occupied in accordance with sub-clause (2) of clause
23, obviously even if the .quondam tenant occupied the premises
without an allotment order, he could not be charged with contra·
vention of sub-clause (2) of clause 23. Assuming that landlord
Basantrai Sharma gave a false assurance in 1954 to the appellant that
the landlord had sent an intimation of vacancy and that no allot· F
ment order is secured within fifteen days from the date of intimation
of vacancy and accordingly false assurance was given, the tenant If
he bona fide reiied upon the assurance emanating from the landlord
and is not shown to be in league with the landlord, be would none
the less be protected and cannot be accused of entering premises in
contravention of clause 23(2). The Honse Allotment Officer has G
recorded no finding on this important point and therefore, on this
short ground bis order is liable to be set aside. ·

H
We however find a greater infirmity in the order of the Honse
Allotment Officer. In the absence of an allotment .order being
pro!lu9e<fby tlw appellant, three possible snrmis~s are permissible;
'•

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984) 1 s.c.a.
,·~
· They are : (I) Shri Basantrai Sharma ·never sent· the intimation of
A vacancy, (ii) that even though he did send the intimation of vacancy
and yet he did not receive any allotment order within the prescribed
period, and (iii) that he· surreptitiously let out the premises to the
appellant after giving him a false assurance that he has complied
with clause 22. . If the allotment order was in fact issued, a copy
B of it would be with the appellant as well it must have been sent to
~I

the Jandlord. There would be an office copy in the file of the case.
No such allotment order is forthcoming. In the absence of an
allotment order, before the appellant could be charged with contra•
vention of clause 22(2), it was incumbent upon the House Allotment
Officer to enquire whether Basantrai Sharma had sent any intimation
c of vacancy to the Collector as required by clause 22(1) (b). If it was
not sent, could his successor in .interest take advantage of his own
wtong when Smt. _Usha Rani N. Sha~ma who claims to be the
inheritor of the premises deliberately remained absent to help the
· applicant Shri S. P. Pathak, who is alleged -to be a near relation of
the husband of Smt. Usha Rani N. Sharma and who is keen to enter
D
the premises by alleging, contravention of clause 22(1) (b) nearly 22
years before the commencement of the proceedings. Further the
tenant contended that deceased landlord gave him an assurance as
required by clause 23(2). In the light of this contention it was
obligatory.upon the landlord or his . successor in interest to prove
E that no such assurance as claimed by the . appellant was ever given
to him. Shri S.P. Pathak, the applicant claims to be a stranger.
Original landlord Basantrai Shrama was dead by the time the present
proceedings commenced. Her successor in interest Smt. Usha Rani
N, Sharma remained absent. Appellant gave evidence that be was
given the assurance that the premises were being let out to him in
F accordance with sub-clause(2) of clause 23. And sub-clause(2) of clause
22 protects a tenant against charge of unauthorised occupation if he
enters premises on the assurance as aforesaid as provided in clause
22(2). The order made by the House Allotment Officer is conspicu•
ously silent on this most relevant question why the allegation of
G assurance put forward by the appellant was not examined by him and
why it was rejected sub silention. The non-application of mind by
the quasi judicial authority lo the most relevant point which goes to
·the root of the matter completely vitiates the order of the House
Allotment Officer, because once the allegati<iti of assurance canvassed ·
H for on behalf of the appellant 'is accepted, he is' not liable to be
evicted on the ground that he entered the premises in, contraventio11
·of clause iz(2),
MANSARAM v. s.i>._I'ArHAK(besai, i.) i49

There is a still further infirmity in the older of t)le House
Allotment Officer. Admittedly, the appellant enterad the premises A
in 1954. He was then serving in the telephone department which ·
would permit an inference to be drawn that he was holding an office
of profit in the Union oflndia. But in order· to attract clause 25
of the Rent Control Order which obligates such holder of the office
of profit tova9ate the premises on his ceasing to hold the office of B
profit, it must be shown that .he entered the premises under an order
of allotment made by the Collector either under clause 23 I or clause
24A. Existence of an order of allotment under clause 23 or clause
•• 24A in favour of a person· holding an office of profit nuder the •
Union of India or the State Government is a· sine qua non before
the obligation under clause 25 can be fastened upon him to vacate c
the premises on ceasing to hold the office of profit which enabled
him to get an order of allotment in his favour. In the absence of
an allotment order, it is not open to the House Allotment Officer to
draw an inference that the premise; wen; allotted ·to the appellant
because he was holding an office of profit. If there is no order or'
D
allotment issued to the appellant on the ground that he is holding
an office of profit, the House Allotment Officr had no jurisdiction to
cali upon him to vacate the premises on the short ground that he has
ceased to hold the office of profit. The House Allotment Officer has
in terms held that as the appellant has retired in 1967, and therefore
lie is not entitled to continue to. occupy the prem.ises. This line of E
- reasoning proceeds on the assumption that there was initially an
' order of allotment in favour of the appellant on the grou\ld that he
J was holding an office·of profit, the assumption being not borne out
by the facts. In the absence of an allotment order, the House Allot"
meat Officer has no jurisdiction to call upon the appellant to vacate
· tl;te premises on the short ground that he . has ceased to hold the
office of profit.

What is.stated hereinbefore is sufficient to ·quash a~d. set aside
the order of the House Allbtment Officer. However, there is one
more aspect of the matter which we cannot overlook. The appeliant
enterd the premises in 1954. There have been numerous proceedings
between him and the late Basantrai Sharma who let out the premises
to the appellant but no one ever raised the question whether the
appellant had entered the pre.mises in contravention of clause 22(2),
. Till Basantrai Sharma died, no one raised the controversy about t!ie
entry of the appellant in the premises as being ,unauthorised or in
contravention of clause
'
22. Basantrai
I
Sharma in his life time tried
.
to
/

Ho stiPR.EMii cotrl!.f REPORTS (19841 l s.c.ft

obtain possession of the premises from the appellant alleging grounds
A availabie to him under the Rent Control Order other than
. -unauthorised entry. This would permit an inference that Basantrai
· Sharma accepted the appellant as his tenant and bis tenancy did .
1
not suffer from any infirmity. After Basantrai Sharma died, her
successor in interest one Smt. Usha Rani N. Sharma did not raise any
B controversy about the occupation of the premises by the appellant.
One Mr. S.P. Pathak, a total stranger has c0 me forward to complain
. about the unauthorised entry of the appellant in the premises, The
unauthorised entry according to the appellant was in the year J 954.
Appellant retired in 1967. Basantrai Sharma was alive in 1967.
c If appellant came into the premises because he was holding an office
of profit, obviously Basantrai Sharma would not miss the opportunity
to evict the appellant because he was otherwise also trying to do the
samething. Rent was accepted without question from the appellant
by Basantrai Sharma till bis death and thereafter. ' Could he be at
this distance of time, thrown out on the ground that bis initial entry
D . was unauthorised. To slightly differently formulate ·the proposition,
could ·the initial unauthorised entry, if there be any, permit a
House Allotment Officer, 22 years after the.entry, to evict the appel-
lant on the short ground that he entered the premises in contraven-
tion of clause 22(2) ? Undoubtedly, power is conferred on the
E Collector to see that the provisions of the Rent Control Order which
disclosed a public policy are effectively implemented and if the
Colloeter therefore, comes across information that there is a
. cmitravention, he is clothed with adequate power to set right the
contravention by ejecting anyone ·who comes into the _premises in
contravention of the provisions. But when the power is conferred
F to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a reasonable manner.
Exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres the concept of its
exercise within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, no limitation is
prescribed in this behalf but one would stand aghast that a ·landlord
to some extent in pari delicto could turn the tab\es against,. the person
w])..o was in possession for 22 years as a tenant. In such a situation, -
even though the House Allotment Officer was to reach an affirmative
conclusion that the initial entry 22 years back was an unai;ihorised
.entry and that failure to vacate premises till 9 years after retirement
was not proper' yet it was not obligatory upon him to pass a
peremptory order of eviction in the manner in which· be has done.
H In such a situation, it would be open to· him not to evict the
appellant. In this connection, we may refer to Murlidhar Agarwal

•
MANSARAM v. S.P. MtHAK (besai, J.) IS!
1 ..
' and Ant. v. State of U.P. & Ors.( 1) wherein one Ram Agyan Singh
who came into possession of premises without an order of allotment A
in his favour as required by sec. 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary)
Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, was permitted to retain the
premises by treating his occupation lawful and this court declined
to interfere with that order. No doubt it must be confessed that
sec. 7A conferred power on the District Magistrate to take action
against unauthorised occupation in contravention of the provisions B
of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947,
but there was a proviso to 'the section which enabled the District
Magistrate not to evict a person found to be in unauthorised occupa-
tion, if the District Magistrate was satisfied that there has been
undue delay or otherwise it .is inexpedient to do so. There is no
such proviso to clause 28 which confers power on the Collector to
c
take necessary action for the °purpose of securing compliance with
the Rent Control Order. But as stated earlier, where power is
·conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a reason·
able manner and the reasonable exercises of power inheres its
exercise within a reasonable time. This is too well established to D
need buttressing by a precedent. However, one is readily available
in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors.( 1) In that case
\. Commissioner exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction under sec. 211
of the Bombay Land Revenue Code which did not prescribe any
period of limitation for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The •
Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction one year after the
Collector made the -order which was. sought to be revised. The
High Court set aside the order of the·Commissioncr. In the· appe'al
by State of Gujarat, this Court declined to interfere holding inter
alia that the revisional power in the absence of prescribed period of
limitation must be exercised within a reasonable time and period of
one year was held io be too late. This aspect must be present to
the mind of House Allotment Officer bef~re just rushiQ.g in on
an unproved technical contraventiol) brought to his notice contrived
by the successor in interest of the deceased landlord, and evicting the
appellant 22 years after his entry and 9 years after his retirement G
on the short ground that his entry in the year 1954 ·was in
contravention of clause 22(2).

Having exarnined all the aspects of the ·matter, we are. satisfied
that the order of the House Allotment ·officer suffers from numerous ·B

(I) [19751 IS.CR. 575.
(2) [1970) I S.C.R. 33S.
'·

1S2 SUPR~MB cOURT RBPORTs (1984) i s.c.
\.
\.
infirmities· and is unsustainable and must be quashed and set aside as
also the order of the High Court dismissing the Special Civil Applica-
tion No. 1957of1977 preferred by the present appellant. Accordingly
this appeal succeeds and is allowed and the application made by the · .
first respondent to'the House Allotment Officer is:dismissed with no
order as to costs throughout: '
B H.L.C. Appeal allowed.
.,

-.·
'