NAROTTAM PRASAD Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the order dated 7-10-1986 under Section 18 of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'? cancelling the allotment order dated 20-6-1979 has been challenged.

(2.) THE main controversy in the present case starts after the vacancy in respect of premises no. 2206, Dampier Nagar, Mathura was notified in accordance with the directions contained in Writ Petition No. 1580 of 1976 dated 17- 5-1979. THE deemed vacancy was notified inviting applications for allotment on 26-5-1979. THE applications for allotment were made by Narottam Prasad, the petitioner, on 22-5-1979 by Shyam Sunder, respondent no. 2, on 26-5-1979, Murari Lal Sharma, Chakhleshwar Singh and on behalf of the District Supply Officer. THE landlord Sri S. C. Goswami also filed an application for release on 16-5-1979. THE application for release was rejected by order dated 18- 6-1979. THEreafter the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after considering the priority of the applications as also bonafide needs of the applicants, issued allotment order on 20-6-1979 in favour of Sri Narottam Prasad, the present petitioner. THE order rejecting the release -application was challenged under Section 18 of the Act in Revision No. 187 of 1979 by Sri S. C. Goswami, the order rejecting the allotment application dated 20-6-1979 was challenged by Shyam Sunder in Revision No. 186 of 1979 and by Murari Lal Sharma in Revision No. 181 of 1979. THE order dated 20-6-1979 has been filed as Annexure (1) to the writ petition. All these cases were taken up together and were disposed of by a common judgment in which the Revision of the Landlord was allowed and the order dated 18-6-1979 as also the order dated 20-0-1979 , were set aside and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was directed to first decide the release application of the landlord in accordance with law. THE order dated 4-2-1981 has been filed as Annexure '2' to the writ petition.

(3.) IN the present petition, the order .dated 7-10-1986 has been challenged before me by Narottam Prasad. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after there was deemed vacancy in the disputed accommodation, the petitioner was the first to make the application for allotment. it has been alleged that the learned II Additional District Judge was not correct in holding ; that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not consider the applications for allotment on merit. The findings of fact have been recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer holding that the need of the petitioner was bonafide and that Shyam Sunder Sharma was the real brother of Murari Lal Sharma who was held to be in unauthorised occupation by the Hon'ble High Court. The allotment of the premises in favour of Shyam Sunder Sharma would only mean, in other way, to regularise an unauthorised occupant. Murari Lal Sharma having failed in his attempt to get his unauthorised occupation regularised has set up Shyam Sunder Sharma to make the claim for allotment on his behalf.