SAVENDRAPAL JAGGI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CIVIL SUPPLIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition Shri P. K. Jain has already put in appearance for respondent no. 2. Considering the legal question INvolved in the writ petition, both the learned counsel have agreed that the petition may be heard and decided finally at this stage and filing of counter and rejoinder affidavits is not necessary.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that respondent no 2 Lt. Col. P. Mukherjee In June, 1984 1st out the accommodation In dispute, i.e. bungalow no. 268. Brooke Street, B. I. lines, Meerut Cannot to the petitioner on rent of Rs. 600/- per month. This letting In favour of the petitioner was without obtaining any allotment order from the Rent control authorities under section 16 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Reputation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) though the building was covered by the aforesaid Act Petitioner continued to occupy the building as tenant since then. Respondent no. 2, however, on 30-3-1992 filed an application under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act and prayed for release of the aforesaid building in his favour on the grounds state therein. On this application the Rent Control Inspector was directed to make a local Inspection and submit a report. Report was submitted on 25-5-1992. An objection to this report was filed by the 'petitioner on 26-6-1992. Petitioner same day also filed an objection against the release application of respondent no. 2. The petitioner and respondent no. 2 exchanged affidavits. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 7-10-1992 has declared that the premises In dispute is vacant. He has farther directed to publish the vacancy and to fix the case for evidence. Aggrieved by this order of declaration of vacancy, the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the constitution.'

(3.) LASTLY, it has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that there was no compliance of rule 8 by the Rent Control Inspector while making local inspection and submitting his report and the entire proceedings are vitiated on this ground alone. Learned counsel has submitted that the Order of respondent no 1 does not contain any reasons and discussion and It is a cryptic order causing serious miscarriage of justice as on the premises having been declared vacant, the petitioner shall be liable to ejectment.