HARI SWARUP Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FINDING a difference of opinion between Single Judge decisions on the status of notification or declaration of vacancy under Section 12 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, a learned Single Judge has referred this group of writ petitions for decision to a Division Bench.

(2.) SOME of the writ petitions have been filed directly against notification of vacancy ; while one other has been instituted after an order of allotment or release had been passed.

(3.) THE proviso to Section 16 (1) (which was added by U. P. Amendment Act No. 28 of 1976) states that in the case of a vacancy referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 12, the District Magistrate shall give an opportunity to the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, of showing that the said section is not attracted to his case before making an order of allotment under clause (a). It is at the stage of considering the applications for allotment that the landlord or the tenant is required to be given an opportunity of hearing to show, inter alia, that no vacancy had, in fact or in law, existed within meaning of Section 12 (4). Sub-section (5) (a) of Section 16 provides another opportunity to the landlord or any other person claiming to be a lawful occupant of the building to apply to the District Magistrate for review of the order of allotment or release. If the District Magistrate is satisfied that the order of allotment or release was not passed properly he can revoke the order and put back the evicted person in possession.