RAJESH KUMAR Vs. IIIRD ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Narain Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. The dispute giving rise to the instant petition relates to shop No. 391, situate in Mohalla Lakshman Ganj, Khurja, of which M/s. Mahlaxmi Investment and Property Company Ltd., Delhi, the respondent No. 3, is, admittedly, the owner -landlord. On 18th September, 1980, the respondent No. 3 intimated to the Rent Control and eviction Officer, Bulandshahar that the shop had fallen vacant. Similar intimation was given by the out -going tenant Sri Purshotam Das. The rent control and Eviction Officer notified the vacancy on 18th September, 1980 itself, without causing any enquiry to be made. Thus the vacancy was notified merely upon the intimation given by the landlord and the outgoing tenant. Many including the petitioner, applied for allotment of the shop in question. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the shop in favour of the petitioner on 8th October, 1980.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of allotment dated 8th October, 1980, the landlord of the shop and rival applicants for allotment preferred a revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter called the Act. The revision was ultimately decided by the II Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar, the respondent No. 1, who by means of his judgment and order dated 23rd January, 1982, allowed the revision, set aside the order of allotment dated 8th October, 1980, passed in favour of the petitioner and remanded the matter back to the Rent control and Eviction Officer, Bulandshahar for consideration of the applications for allotment in accordance with law and after issuing a notice to the landlord for the date fixed for consideration of the allotment applications. This order of the respondent No. 1 is under challenge in the instant writ -petition.

(3.) SRI B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the service of notice under sub -rule (3) of Rule 9 of the rules upon the landlord is not mandatory. According to him, what the provision requires is the substantial compliance thereof and if the notice has been issued and attempt has been made to serve the notice it would be sufficient compliance of the said provision even though the notice may not be actually served upon the landlord. Alternate contention of the learned counsel is that in the instant case the notice upon the respondent No. 3 had actually been served at Khurja address and that should be taken as sufficient compliance of sub -rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules.