R K PARASHER Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from the common judgment of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos. 3951 and 7273 of 1982 passed on October 16, 1997.

(2.) The petitioner in the first-mentioned writ petition is the son of the petitioner in the second-mentioned writ petition. In the writ petitions, they impugned the order of allotment of Shop No. 123-A. Madar Gate, Aligarh, (hereinafter referred to as 'the shop') in favour of the appellant, made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh (Respondent No. 3) on November 19, 1981 and confirmed by IInd Additional District Judge, Aligarh (Respondent No. 2) by his order dated April 1, 1982. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the said orders of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) The facts giving rise to these appeals are briefly set out here. One Bishan Sarup Gupta was the owner of the shop which was in the occupation of the tenant-Gulab Chand Jain. Dinesh Kumar (respondent No. 1) with the connivance of the then tenant filed an application for permission to carry on business in partnership in the shop under Rule 10(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rules') with a view to induct respondent No. 1 as a tenant. But that application was dismissed by the District Supply Officer on November 9, 1976. The second attempt was made by respondent No. 1 by filing an application under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') for regularisation of his tenancy, alleging that he occupied the shop on July 1, 1976. The District Supply Officer dismissed that petition holding, inter alia, "possession of Dinesh Kumar cannot be regularised under Section 14 of the Act. In the eye of law the disputed shop is vacant. It is, therefore, declared to be vacant and declaration of vacancy be carried out." For consideration of the application for allotment of the shop the case was posted on September 14, 1978. By that date there were four applicants - the applicant herein, respondent No. 1 his father Chandra Pal and one Gopal Krishan Sharma for allotment of the shop. After considering the respective merits of the applicants, the third respondent alloted the shop in favour of the appellant by order dated November 19, 1981. The correctness of that order was questioned by respondent No. 1 and Chandra Pal as well as the heirs of the said landlord by filing the revision petitions before the second respondent under Section 18 of the Act. The second respondent upheld the order of allotment of the shop in favour of the appellant holding inter-alia that under Rule 11 of the Rules his application the first in time had priority and dismissed the revision petitions on April 1, 1982. That order was questioned in the aforesaid writ petitions by respondent No. 1 and Chandra Pal before the High Court. By the impugned common order, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the allotment made in favour of the appellant.