OMWATI DEVI Vs. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 18-5-1999 declaring the vacancy passed by respondent No. 1 and the order dated 13-12-1999 rejecting the application for recalling the said order.

(2.) THE notice on behalf of respondent No. 2, the landlady has been accepted by Sri Swapnil Kumar, Advocate. He made a statement that he docs not propose to file any counter-affidavit and the matter may be decided on merits.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner-contended that the question as to who was the tenant was to be decided after afford ing opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on this question. Petitioner No. 1 had filed the application with the allegation that she was not afforded any opportunity of hearing and the impugned order was passed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer made an observation that the vacancy could have been challenged by way of filing a writ petition. Once the Rent Control and Evic tion Officer found that the order was to be passed after affording opportunity to the party who was found in possession, he should have recalled the order. The conten tion of the petitioner No. 1 was that there was an agreement of tenancy and earlier the landlady respondent No. 2 had recognised her as tenant in Suit No. 45 of 1992 and Suit No. 3 of 1986. As the petitioner No. 1 had not been afforded any opportunity to lead evidence in respect of her rights and the order declaring vacancy was ex-parte, these orders are liable to be quashed.