TIRLOK SINGH AND CO Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave raises a short. though important question under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 13 of 1972.

(2.) Respondents 2 and 3 filed an application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act for the 'release' of certain residential premises of which the appellants claim to be their tenants. Respondent 1, acting as a Rent Controller, directed a Senior Inspector to inspect the premises and make a report. Accordingly, the Senior Inspector inspected the premises and submitted a report on April 9, 1974 stating; "After hearing the parties it would be proper to take further action." The Senior Inspector seems to have found that the premises were in occupation of 3 persons two of whom claimed to be partners of the appellant-firm M/s. Tirlok Singh and Co. On receipt of the report respondent 1 passed the impugned order. "Let the vacancy be notified", admittedly without granting any hearing to theappellants.

(3.) On May 23, 1974 the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the aforesaid order on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Pending admission of the writ petition the High Court stayed further proceedings consequent on the order. On August 7, 1974, a Division Bench of the High Court rejected the writ petition summarily, with a brief speaking order. It felt that the writ petition was premature and that the proper remedy for the appellants was to approach respondent 1 under Section 16 (5) (a) of the Act for reviewof the order directing that the vacancy be notified.