LAWS(UTN)-2005-6-32

RAGHUBIR SINGH MALL Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

Decided On June 18, 2005
Raghubir Singh Mall (since dead) and Ors. Appellant
V/S
Addl. District Judge and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the 1 -9 -1984 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, (for short R.C. and E.O.) Mussoorie in Rent case No. 22 of 1984 regarding Chandra Lok Cottage No. 1 Loidour Cantt. Mussoorie and the judgment and order dated 23 -5 -1985 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Dehradun. By the impugned order dated 21 -9 -1984 the R.C. and E.O. allotted the premises in question in favour of Sri D.P. Bijalwan -Respondent No. 4. Vide judgment and order dated 23 -5 -1985, the learned District Judge dismissed the revisions preferred by Raghubir Singh and others.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the allotment proceedings started before the R.C. and E.O. on the basis of an application moved by Kala Singh (Respondent No. 3) dated 26 -4 -1984 on which report of the Rent Control Inspector was called for. He submitted his report on 30 -5 -1984. The R.C. and E.O. issued notices to the concerned parties inviting objections. After hearing them the vacancy was declared on 22 -8 -1984 and notified. There were seven prospective allottees. The land lady Smt. Chandrakanta Baijpai nominated Sri Raghubir Singh claiming the benefit of Section 17(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The R.C. and E.O. then went on scrutinizing the relevant provisions of law before passing the impugned allotment order. Ultimately the R.C. and E.O. came to the conclusion that the nomination by the landlady was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act. Thereafter on the merits of the case, the R.C. and E.O. came to the conclusion that the case of the prospective allottee Sri. D.R Bijalwan was genuine on the point of inter -se comparative need of the Applicants. Accordingly the R.C. and E.O. passed the impugned allotment order.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the entire material on record including the impugned orders. It is admitted fact that the Petitioner is the nominee of the landlady.