RAM AUTAR Vs. 9TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's father Narain Prasad was a tenant of the accomodation in dispute However, he was evicted therefrom on 24-11-80 in the proceedings under Section 16 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 after holding the aforesaid accomodation to be vacant and releasing the same in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 3.

(2.) IT appears that subsequent to the release the landlord instead of utilising the said premises for the purpose for which it was got released let out the same to Kailash Chandra, respondent No. 4 some where in the year 1983. On 18-3-85, the petitioner moved an application seeing allotment of the aforesaid premises in his favour on the ground that the said accomodation having been allowed to be occupied by respondent No 4 in contravention of the provisions of the U. P. Act No. 10 of 1972 would be deemed to be vacant and available for allotment, as the status of Kailash Chandra referred to above was that of an unauthorised occupant as envisaged under Section 13 of the said Act. Another application for allotment of the premises in dispute was filed by respondent No 4 who was occupying the premises and running his business therein as stated above.

(3.) IN the present case as is apparent from the record there is no dispute regarding the premises in question being vacant and available for allotment. IN the facts and circumstances of the case the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has preferred to allot the premises in dispute to respondents No. 4. This preference has been found by the revisional authority to be proper and in accordance with law.