HARJEET KAUR Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 28-1-2000 declaring the disputed accom modation as vacant and thereafter passing an order releasing the disputed accommodation and rejecting the application of the petitioner for recalling the order dated 28-1-2000 on 16-2-2000.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts arc that the petitioner is alleged to have let out the disputed premises in the year 1993-94 of which respondent No. 2 Smt. Amita Das Sharma is landlady. She filed an applica tion for release of the disputed accom modation stating that the petitioner was in possession without an allotment order and it should be treated as vacant. The petitioner filed an objection alleging that the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable; firstly, for the reason that the disputed accommodation was let out on Rs. 3,000/- per month and secondly, it was constructed in the year 1989 and the provisions of the Act were not applicable. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order on 21-8-2000 holding that as the petitioner himself admitted that he was let out the accommodation in 1994 he shall be treated in unauthorised occupa tion without any order of allotment being passed in his favour. His possession shall be treated in violation of Section 11 read with Section 13 of Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner filed an application to recall the said order slating the reasons why the petitioner or his Counsel could not appear in the said case. Respondent No. 1, rejected the application on 16-2-2000.

(3.) SRI K. K. Arora, learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that the application shall be deemed to have been allowed as respondent No. 1 noted the arguments raised in respect of merits of the case and has recorded his own finding. It is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the petitioner was justified to remain absent on the date when the ease was taken up on the date of he ring as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has decided the controversies raised by the parties.