SHADI RAM Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel. Three orders passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") have generated a cause of action to petitioner, Shadi Ram, Son of Late Lal Chand and M/s. Lal Chand Shadi Ram, a partnership firm, to bring this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution before this Court.

(2.) The first impugned order is dated 13.5.1992 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) declaring vacancy in accommodation in question i.e. House No. 51 - B, Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar comprising of two shops. The second order is dated 20.8.1992 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) whereby accommodation in question has been allotted in favour of Sri Arvind Bhardwaj, respondent No. 3, and third order dated 04.02.2000 (Annexure 19 to the writ petition) whereby RCEO has rejected petitioner's application registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1998 for recall of orders dated 13.5.1992 and 20.8.1992.

(3.) The basic contention of Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that entire proceedings causing first two impugned orders dated 13.5.1992 and 20.8.1992 are ex parte i.e. without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner, hence illegal.