SURYA KUMARI DEVI Vs. ADJ AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.7.2000 whereby revision filed by the respondent No. 3 under Sec. 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, was allowed by the Revisional Authority, the respondent No. 1, and building in question was released in favour of respondent No. 3.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition in brief are that the respondent No. 3 purchased the building in question from Sri Ishwar Das on 8.1.1999. It was on 12.3.1999 that an intimation of vacancy in the building in question was given by the respondent No. 3 under Sec. 15 (1) read with Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Act. On the basis of, which, proceedings under Sec. 16 of the Act were initiated. The building in question got inspected through the Rent Control Inspector who submitted his report to the effect that the building in question was in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the petitioner and the same was thus legally vacant. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer after hearing the parties and after perusing the material on record, declared the building in question as vacant by his judmgent and order dated 23.9.1999. The validity of the said order was not challenged by the petitioner. On the other hand, she applied for allotment of the said house in her favour. The respondent No. 3 also made an application under Sec. 16 (1) (b) of the Act for release of the building in question in his favour asserting that she was in genuine and bona fide need of the said building. The petitioner also filed an objection against the application for release filed by the respondent No. 3 asserting that need of the said respondent was not genuine and bona fide. After hearing the parties, the Rent Control & Eviction Officer held that need of the respondent No. 3 for the building in question was not genuine and bona fide and dismissed the release application by his judgment and order dated 31.12.1999. Challenging the validity of the aforesaid order, respondent No. 3 filed revision under Sec. 18 of the Act before the Revisional Authority, the respondent No. 1. Before the Revisional Authority petitioner raised an objection regarding maintainability of the release application. It was contended that the release application was filed within three years of the purchase of the house, the same was, therefore, legally not maintainable. On the other hand, the respondent No. 3 contended that the release application was filed under Sec. 18 of the Act and not under Sec. 21 of the Act. Therefore, the rule of exhaustion of three years before making an application for release which is applicable to the proceedings under Sec. 21 of the Act will not apply in the present case as the building in question was factually and legally vacant. It was also stated that the petitioner was nothing but of a prospective allottee. She, therefore, had no right to intervene in the release proceedings, which were between the landlord and the District Magistrate. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer rejected the objection raised by the petitioner. He, thereafter, perusing the material on record came to the conclusion that need of the respondent No. 3 for the building in question was bona fide and genuine. Having recorded the said finding, the respondent No. 2 allowed the revision and release the building in question in favour of the respondent No. 3 by his judgment and order dated 25.7.2000, hence the present petition.