GANESH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in this writ petitioner relates to a portion of house no. 1028 situate in Mohalla Khairabad, Sultanpur. In May, 1987 one Shiv Narain Misra applied for allotment of this accommodation in his favour. THE Rent Control Inspector made inspection on 26-5-1987 and reported that the landlady was performing last rites of a deceased member of her family and inspection will be made again. On 9-6-1987 the Rent Control Inspector visited the place again and reported the premises to be in the own occupation of the landlady and the accommodation having never been let out before. Shri Narain Misra, it appears, did not press his application and the landlady moved an application for release. Report of the Rent Control Inspector was again called and in this third report dated 24-17-1988 it was mentioned that family of the landlady does not reside in the said house and the same is locked. It was, however, mentioned in the report that the landlady be heard before any further action is taken in the matter. Notice was directed to be' issued to the landlady requiring her to appear on 27-12-1988. In the meantime, respondent no. 2 Ram Dular Yadav applied for allotment of the disputed accommodation on 7-11-1988. THE Rent Control Officer passed orders on 12-1-1989 for notifying the vacancy and on 18-1-1989 while considering the applications for allotment order for allotment was passed in favour of Ram Dular Yadav.

(2.) THE landlady filed revision about the declaration of the vacancy and the other order of allotment, Learned Additional District Judge, Sultanpur by his judgment and order dated 16-9-1989 allowed the revision and set aside the impugned order and removed the case back to the Rent Control Officer with the direction that he will ascertain the vacancy in accordance with rule 8 of the Rules under the Act and, if he notifies the vacancy to take up the proceedings for allotment in accordance with rules 9 and 10 of the Rules.

(3.) IT may be noticed that the order regarding notification of vacancy and for allotment was set aside by the Additional District Judge with the finding that the same were passed in violation of the requirements of rules 8, 9 and 10 of the Rules.