SMT. MEERA GUPTA Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER, SECOND ADDITIONAL PARGANA MAGISTRATE, ETAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent No. 2 moved an application for declaration of vacancy under Section 12/16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). The report was called from the Rent Control Inspector and notice was issued. The application was allowed on 2nd November, 1996 and the premises was declared vacant under Section 12/16 of the Act (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). Thereafter, the premises was released in favour of the Respondent No. 2 by order dated 8th November, 1996 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition). The petitioner moved an application for recalling the ex -parte orders dated 2nd November, 1996 and 8th November, 1996. The application has been rejected by order dated 10th April, 2001 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition.) Aggrieved by it the present writ petition has been preferred.

(2.) I have heard Sri Y.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel for the caveator -Respondent No. 2.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the order it is clear that this point was not considered by the Respondent No. 1. It May be mentioned that the application for recall was moved by the Respondent No. 2. Therefore, prima facie the contention that U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 does not apply to the premises appears to be correct. In the circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10th April, 2001 passed by Respondent No. 1 is quashed. The matter is sent back to Respondent No. 1 to re -decide the application for recall of the order, Annexure 9 to the writ petition after recording the finding on the point whether U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 apply to the premises or not, not being influenced for any observation made in the body of the judgment.