DEVI LAL SAH (SINCE DECEASED) AND OTHERS Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (E)/RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER, NAINITAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.12.1999 (copy Annexure-6 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No.1 i.e. Additional District 3 Magistrate (E)/Rent Control and Eviction Officer (for short RCEO), rejecting the release application of the landlord, and order dated 25.01.2000 (copy Annexure-8 to the writ petition), passed by said authority, whereby building known as Standard Hotel has been allotted to Bhupal Singh Bhakuni (respondent No.2). A man­damus has also been sought directing the respondents to handover immediate possession of House No. 166-67, Upper Floor, Standard Hotel, Mallital, Nainital.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on the record. Facts of the Case:

(3.) THE writ petition was contested by respondent No.2 who filed two counter affidavits one a short counter affidavit and another a supplementary counter affidavit. In the short counter affidavit, the contesting respondent No.2 Bhupal Singh Bhakuni has stated that this writ petition is not maintainable as alternative remedy was available to the landlords. It is further stated that after rejection of release application when the revision was filed by the landlords it was the land­lord himself who gave the impression to the revisional Court that no stay order was in operation. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that from the order dated 01.12.1998, by which the revisional Court (District Judge, Nainital) re­manded the matter to RCEO for fresh disposal of the release application, it is apparent that the revisionist (landlord) was represented by his Counsel before the revisional Court and as such had the knowledge of the date fixed (21.12.1998) on which the parties had to appear before RCEO. It is further pleaded by the answering respondent that the notices were sent to the petitioner on his correct address by RCEO and it is wrong to say that he was not served with the notices as alleged in the writ petition. It is further pleaded that interim order passed by Allahabad High Court had no operation after the stay vacation application moved by answering respondent in the writ petition filed by the previous tenant before Allahabad High Court and the same was not disposed of within a period of 14 days. As to the non payment of rent it has been stated that the answering re­spondent sent the rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per annum, but the landlord refused to accept the same. Consequently, the answering respondent had to deposit the rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. It is further pleaded that the petitioners had full knowledge of the allotment made in favour of respon­dent No.2 in the year 2000, and the present writ petition is filed almost after three years without any sufficient explanation. As to the passing of allotment order in favour of respondent No.2 by respondent No. 1 in violation of interim order passed by the Allahabad High Court, it is further stated that after the revisional Court remanded the matter, the RCEO could not have defied it. In this regard, it is further stated that the RCEO was never served with copy of interim order dated 10.01.1991 passed by the Allahabad High Court.