JUDGMENT
Binod Kumar Roy and R. K. Mahajan, JJ.
1. The prayer of the petitioner is to command respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to protect life, property and privacy of her as well as the members of her family from the hands of respondent No. 7 and his associates by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus.
1.1. A further prayer has been made for restraining the landlord–respondent No. 7 from harassing her peaceful tenancy of the upper portion of the House No. 86/130 Mohalla Lunia, police station Kotwali. town and district Dehradun and for restoration of electrical and water supplies to her aforementioned premises.
2. The petitioner asserts, inter alia, that she belongs to the minority community ; she is tenant of the premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 300 since 1980 of respondent No. 7 who resides on the ground floor of the said house ; she is a social worker and the Joint Secretary of U. P. Congress Committee (I) besides Sanyojika of its Mahila Wing ; her husband Sikandar Khan is a renowned contractor and they are having 3 sons and 4 daughters, the eldest one is married : in her premises aforementioned she is also having a telephone bearing No. 652959 : respondent No. 7 is a man of criminal nature who has opened a gambling centre on the ground floor of the house where men-anti social and criminal in nature assemble ; respondent No. 7 claims himself to be a worker of Bhartiya Janta Party and close to the Chief Minister of the State ; respondent No. 7 always threatens the petitioner ; since January, 1998, she has been making complaints in writing as well as oral against the activities of respondent No. 7 but no heed was paid by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 : respondent No. 7 thereby became angry and threatened her to evict from the tenanted accommodation and cause harm to her life and property besides involving her as well as her children in false cases apart from getting her three young daughters kidnapped ; respondent No. 7 also got lodged on 15.3.1998 a false First Information Report at police station Kotwali. district Dehradun under Section 452/506, I.P.C. which was registered as Crime Case No. 127 of 1998. against two of her sons ; on 18.3.1998 respondent No. 7 did not allow her to enter her tenanted accommodation and . Ice then has locked it in which her house holds, telephone and other cosily articles are lying ; a complaint (as contained in Annexure-2) made on 18.3.1988 to respondent No. 2, a further complaint made on 20.3.98 (as contained in Annexure-3) to respondent No. 4. an application dated 20.3.98 (as contained in Annexure-4) given by her to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Magistrate, Dehradun and S.H.O. police station Kotwali. Dehradun as well as a further application (as contained in Annexure-5] sent by a citizen to the Chief Minister all have proved futile and hence this writ petition invoking Articles 14, 15, 21 and 300A of the Constitution.
3. Sri H. S. Nigam. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that in the facts and circumstances the petitioner has got no remedy under the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and thus this writ petition, being the most appropriate remedy and it is a fit case in which this Court should intervene and grant desired relief to the petitioner who has been victimised by respondent No. 7 in a number of ways.
4. In view of the fact that the petitioner has impleaded the Chief Minister of the State as respondent No. 6 and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun by his name as respondent No. 3, Mr, H. R. Mishra, the learned standing counsel, prayed to adjourn this case so that he could obtain Instructions and file a counter. He contended that presumably in view of the fact that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and her 2 sons in which all of them are on bail and on enquiry the police had found the allegations made by the petitioner not true nothing has been done by the Police ; there is no explanation why the criminal courts were not set in motion
by the petitioner by filing complaints and why she did not move the Prescribed Authority under the Act for protecting her alleged dispossession prima facie speaks volumes against the petitioner. It appears that a political colour has been given by the petitioner otherwise her party being in opposition would have highlighted the matter through various modes. This writ petition is thus fit to be dismissed summarily.
5. However, in view of the nature of the order which we propose to pass, we do not consider necessary to adjourn this case Inviting counter-affidavit.
6. Annexure-1 to the writ petition is Xe-rox copy of Demand Note dated 27.4.1993 of the Department of Telecommunication to Smt. Nazma Khan showing her Address 86/130 Lunia Mohalla, Dehradun, asking her to deposit Rs. 800 initial payment under ‘Own your Telephone Scheme’. No bill of the Telecom Department has been brought on the record to prove that Telephone No. 652959 was in fact installed in the house in question.
6.1. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is typed copy of the letter dated 18.3.1998 of the petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police. It shows her present address as Aradhar Model Colony, Dehradun. It states that about 2 p.m. on 16.3.1998 the landlord along with 20-25 persons armed with lathi and danda had come to her residence and threatened her to immediately vacate the house otherwise the results will not be good and started abusing her and left away giving an hours time or else by making a demonstration in the town will compell her to vacate the premises or get her killed. On this day at 5 p.m. he came along with 20 policeman who took away her and her 2 sons forcibly and told subsequently that a criminal case under Sections 452 and 506 has been registered and they were produced before the Court at 3.30 p.m. on the next day where she got herself released on bail. Thereafter she returned back to her residence and found her landlord along with his associates who started using abusive words and asked her to go away or else she will be murdered. Being frightened she went to the residence of her son-in-law. Thus appropriate protective action for her as well as of her family members be taken.
6.2. Annexure-3 to the writ petition is typed copy of her letter dated 20.3.1998 addressed to the Kotwal of P.S. Kotwali, Dehradun, showing her address as 86/130, Mohalla Lunla. Dehradun. It has been stated therein that on the direction of the Police Administration she came today to her tenanted house from her daughters house where she is residing and it has transpired that her Landlord has cut off the supply of electricity and water and thus it is humbly requested for making Immediate arrangement of supply of electricity and water.
6.3. Annexure-4 to the writ petition is a typed copy of an undated letter of her addressed to the S.S.P., Dehradun, though it appears to have been written on 20.3.1998 intimating, inter alia, of giving another threat and of killing by the landlord at about 7.30 p.m. of 20.3.98 to vacate the house or else it will be also burnt and hence criminal case be registered against them.
6.4. Annexure-5 to the writ petition is a typed copy of an undated letter written by one Jishan Ullah to the Chief Minister in regard to the attempt made by the Landlord to illegally vacate the tenanted premises, the Jam made by the local B.J.P. M.L.A. on 16.3.98 at Ghanta Ghar and making of speech etc. and thus appropriate steps be taken or else there will be out-break of communal violence.
6.5. Annexure-6 is typed copy of her letter dated 20.4.1998 to the S.S.P., Dehradun. It refers to the incidents of March 16 and 17. Significantly it talks of voluntary going of her sons to the police station which is contrary to her stand taken in her letter dated 18.3.1998. It also refers to illegal entry of the landlord and his men in her tenanted premises, damaging of the door of her
kitchen and stealing away of Gas Cylinder, Gas Lantern and other articles causing damage to the extent of Rs. 50.000 and thus a criminal case be directed to be registered and she be let off.
6.6. Annexure-8 is typed copy of her letter dated 2.7.1998 to the S.S.P., Dehradun, stating for the first time that her landlord does gambling and supplies woman to the officials, etc.
7. Annexure-2 shows pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner and her two sons in which they were granted bail. We in this writ petition cannot observe anything in that regard. Nothing prevented the petitioner to move the criminal courts in regard to the alleged incidents by filing complaints before the Competent Magistrate soon after March 18 and 20 and April 20 incidents when the police took no action.
8. It is indeed surprising that why the petitioner did not move the Competent Authority under the Act after 18.3.1998 and 20.3.1998 and/or 20.4.1998 for restoration of her amenities.
9. U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972. Is a social piece of legislation enacted by our Legislature to protect the interest of tenant as well as landlord. Chapter V of the Act deals with regulations of rights and obligations of the landlords and tenants both. Section 26 of the Act casts an obligation on the landlord not to cut-off, withhold or reduce any of the amenities enjoyed by a tenant without any lawful authority or excuse. Under sub-section (2) of this section, the Landlord is bound to keep the building under tenancy wind proof and water proof and is required to carry out periodical white-washing and repairs subject to any written contract. Section 27 of the Act gives a right to a tenant, if his amenities are breached by the landlord, to move an application before the Prescribed Authority on which the Prescribed Authority is required to serve upon the landlord a notice, not exceeding one week period, to restore back the amenities alleged to have been cut-off, withheld or reduced in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 26 or to show cause why an order under the said Section be not passed against him.
Section 28B of the Act guarantees further the tenants of their rights to get water and installation of sanitary fittings. Section 31 deals with penalties in the case of contravention.
In this context Mr. Nigam submitted that the word ‘amenities’ mentioned in the Statute does not protect the petitioner’s right to enter in the tenanted premises and enjoy it in the manner she tikes.
9.1. We have no hesitation in rejecting this submission of Mr. Nigam.
9.2. The word ‘amenity’ has not been defined under the Act. Therefore. one can take into account the dictionary meanings of this word. Sir James A. H. Murrey–A New English Dictionary. Oxford–defines amenity as follows : “Quality of being pleasant-a-of places, their situation, aspect, climate etc.”
9.3. According to Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, 1986 Edition, ‘Amenities of any place include any view of or from what place.”
9.4. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, an ‘amenity’ consists in restraining the owner from doing that with and on his property which, but for the grant or covenant, he might lawfully have done.
9.5. The preamble of the Act talks of, inter alia, regulation of eviction, of tenants and for matters connected therewith. From the statements of objects and reasons of the Bill, the grounds on which eviction of a sitting tenant, has now been restricted. Sections 20 and 21 of the Act regulates eviction of the tenants only on the grounds mentioned therein. Accordingly, it is clear that a tenant under the Act cannot be evicted by his landlord save and except on the grounds mentioned in the Act and as per the procedure prescribed under the Act. It is well-settled that a social piece of legislation like Rent Legislation has
to be interpreted in such a way so that it can serve the needs .of those for whom it has been enacted. If we accept the submission of Mr. Nigam that the word ‘amenity’ does not include the right of entry of the tenant in his tenanted house, that will be negation of the express provision of the Statute itself. In our view, the word ‘amenity’ not only includes the petitioner’s right to enter in her tenanted premises but also to enjoy it (tenanted premises) in the manner which is expected from her legitimately including her right to have a peaceful day and night, her privacy besides protection to her life Itself. It also guarantees a tenant to retain the tenanted premises till he is evicted in accordance wtth law. Otherwise how in the case of his forcible illegal dispossession a tenant can still enjoy the amenities guaranteed under the Act.
9.6. The Statute gives only 7 days time to a landlord to file his reply by way of show cause to the notice Issued by the Prescribed Authority.
9.7. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the view that the, petitioner has still got an alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy under the Statute aforementioned.
9.8. We are further of the view that the Prescribed Authority is expected to act fairly, fearlessly, objectively and to protect the interest of a tenant.
9.9. From a reading of the documents appended as Annexures-2 to 4 and 6, it does not appear that the petitioner ever showed her willingness to pay costs for deputation of police force at her residence while making a prayer before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun. She may move the District Magistrate or the Police authorities under Section 13 of the Police Act or Regulation No. 199 and/or 200 of the Police Regulations for providing security in accordance with law provided she makes out proper grounds and expresses her willingness to pay costs for deputation of police force at her tenanted residence for safety of her person and properly there and we are sure that if she succeeds in making out such grounds along with such a prayer, the same will be considered objectively keeping in view her claim to be Joint Secretary of U. P. Congress (I) and Sanyojika of its Mahila Wing and its disposal by assigning reasons by the authority concerned expeditiously preferably within a fortnight of making of her application.
10. With the aforementioned liberty/directions, we dismiss this writ petition.
11. The office is directed to hand-over two copies of this order to Sri H. R. MIshra. learned standing counsel for its communication to the Prescribed Authority under the Act for a follow up expeditious action no-sooner the petitioner files an application under Section 20 of the Act as well as to the D.M./Higher Police Authorities for providing security to her in accordance with law.