R K SHUKLA Vs. SUDHRIST NARAIN ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Parsuram Pandey filed an application for allotment of a part of House No.21, George Town, Hamilton Road, Allahabad, U.P. (in short "the disputed premises") which had allegedly fallen vacant. There were in all, thirteen applications for allotment of the disputed premises by various persons before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer (in short "the RC & EO"). On the said application of Parsuram Pandey for allotment of the disputed premises, an order was passed by the RC & EO on 9th of September, 1980 directing the Rent Control Inspector (in short "the RCI") to inquire and report on the issue of vacancy of the said disputed premises. Consequent to the order dated 9th of September, 1980, the RCI, after inspecting the disputed premises, submitted his report to the RC & EO regarding vacancy. Thereafter, the RC & EO on 18th of September, 1980 passed an order issuing notice to the landlord/respondent calling upon him to appear on 6th of October, 1980 and directed that the matter of allotment of the disputed premises would be considered on that date. Notices dated 15th of November, 1980 and 1st of December, 1980 were again issued to the respondent for the aforesaid purpose. On 3rd of January, 1981, the respondent was directed to appear before the RC & EO and accordingly, the respondent did appear before the RC & EO but no other person was present there. The RC & EO noted the presence of the respondent and passed the following order: -

(2.) The RC & EO passed an order dated 24th of January, 1981, on the question of vacancy and also directed the matter to be put up on 31st of January, 1981 for arguments on allotment and orders. It was the case of the respondent that by the aforesaid order dated 24th of January, 1981, he came to know that certain applications were filed before the RC & EO for allotment of the disputed premises although he along with his family members was very much living in the disputed premises and there was no occasion for anyone to make any application for allotment. Accordingly, the respondent had brought to the notice of the RC & EO that he was occupying the disputed premises and the question of allotment of the disputed premises to anyone else could not arise at all. Therefore, all the applications for grant of allotment of the disputed premises must be dismissed. It was all along the case of the respondent that he had filed his objections with regard to the matter of allotment of the disputed premises on 24th of January, 1981 to the extent that the disputed premises which was occupied and possessed by the respondent was No. 21, Hamilton Road and not No. 21, Georgetown, Allahabad, with which the respondent had no concern and the allotment applications, if they related to No. 21, Hamilton Road, Allahabad were liable to be rejected as no part of the same was lying vacant. At this stage, it would not be out of place to mention that the notice received by the respondent was not indicative of the fact that the question of allotment of the disputed premises would be considered on 3rd of January, 1981. It was also all along the case of the respondent that the notice was served on him at his address although the notice mentioned the address of the respondent as 103, Chowk Gangadas, Allahabad and on the back of the notice, there was the process server's report that the respondent was residing at No. 21, Hamilton Road, Georgetown, Allahabad. According to the respondent, without considering the objections filed by him, the RC & EO on 24th of January, 1981 declared the vacancy particularly when the respondent himself had appeared before the RC & EO specifically bringing to his notice that he was in physical occupation of the disputed premises and nothing was vacant which could be said to be available for allotment. It was also the case of the respondent that the RC & EO without considering the objection filed by him passed the order dated 24th of January, 1981 declaring vacancy in the following manner: -

(3.) A bare perusal of the aforesaid order of the RC & EO passed on 24th of January, 1981 would make it clear that the said order was passed without considering the objection of the respondent and by even mentioning that the respondent had no objection when it was all through his case that the objections were submitted before the RC & EO. It is also an admitted position that the alleged report of the RCI would only show that the disputed premises was locked at the time of inspection and it did not indicate that no body was residing there. Therefore, it was the case of the respondent that the fact that the disputed premises was locked cannot by any stretch of imagination mean that no body was residing in the disputed premises entitling the RC & EO to declare the same vacant for allotment.