GANI MASTER Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ petition, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, was allowed by me vide my order dated 9th May, 2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for allowing the aforesaid petition.

(2.) PETITIONER, who is the tenant of the building in question, has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders passed by the authorities below, as would be clear from the fact that he has deposited the rent under Section 30 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act, before the Court below concerned and since then matter is pending. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed an application for release of the building in question whereupon the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Prescribed Authority) directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit inspection report who on its turn, has submitted his inspection report dated 4-8-1998 and found that at the time of inspection one Chhote Miyan met at the spot and he informed that in the building in question there are four rooms on the ground floor and two rooms only are on the first floor. He further stated that in the year 1987, his father had permitted the petitioner Mohd. Gani son of Lalu to live in one room situated at the first floor, but subsequently petitioner has forcibly occupied remaining one room on the first floor and one room on the ground floor and allowed the same to be occupied for his brother and nephew, namely, Maqsood and Raju respectively and further on inspection it was found that in the room situated on the ground floor, the son of Maqsood and his family members have occupied the same as unauthorised occupants and he himself is living out since 1999. The Inspector further submitted that on the spot petitioner Mohd. Gani, his wife and sons were met and stated that they are living in the said room for past 20-25 years with the consent of the landlord and the rent of the building in question is being deposited in the Court.

(3.) NEEDLESS to say that the aforesaid view of the Prescribed Authority is not correct. If it is presumed that no revision lies, then the recall application cannot be rejected in such a summary manner as has been done by the Prescribed Authority without considering the documents, which were already on record, but are said to have been deliberately removed or misplaced from the record. In either situation, it was incumbent on the part of the Prescribed Authority to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his stand that he is living in the building in question since before coming into force the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner has referred to the documents which were filed but now have been removed or misplaced from the record. In these circumstances either the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to file the copies of these documents again, or an enquiry should have been directed to be conducted under what circumstances these documents which according to the petitioner have been filed but were subsequently misplaced.