VINOD CHANDRA SHUKLA Vs. ANAND KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises in the following circumstances. There is a house No. S/272 in mohalla Saraogi Nawabganj, Barabanki. Its owners were Anand Kumar Gupta and his mother, Smt. Ram Lali. The said house was allotted to Vinod Chandra Shukla by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide allotment order dated 12th March, 1974. An appeal under Section 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) was filed by Anand Kumar Gupta and his mother, Smt. Ram Lali, in the Court of District Judge, Barabanki. During the pendency of the appeal Smt. Ram Lali died on 31st October, 1974. Vinod Chandra Shukla, the allottee, moved an application on 8th November, 1974 praying that the appeal was incompetent because the memorandum of appeal had not been signed by the Appellants. He also moved an application that the Vakalatnama filed by the Counsel did not bear the signatures of the Appellants. Anand Kumar filed an affidavit copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition deposing that he and his mother who were the landlords of the house in question, had jointly preferred the said appeal against the allotment order dated 12th March, 1974 allotting the said house to the Respondent. He also deposed that the copy of the order as received by him had been enclosed with the memorandum of appeal. Further, he deposed that the said appeal was filed in the Court by the authorised Counsel of the Appellants, Sri. R.S. Bajpai Advocate on 27th March, 1974 and the said appeal was admitted by the Court on 28th March, 1974. He deposed that during the pendency of the appeal in the Court his mother, Smt. Ram Lali Appellant No. 2 had expired on 31st October, 1974 and he is the sole heir and legal heir of Smt. Ram Lali. The said appeal was lateron converted into a revision. The learned 1st Additional District Judge, Barabanki, who heard the revision, held that the revision was not incompetent on the aforesaid ground as alleged by the opposite party. On merits it was held that the allotment order was not in consonance with law ; consequently the revision was allowed and the order of allotment passed in favour of Vinod Chandra Shukla was set aside and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was directed to pass proper order according to law after disposing of the release application of the revisionist Vinod Chandra Shukla has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the quashing of the said order of the learned District Judge, Barabanki.

(2.) FOR the Petitioner the only point urged before me was that as the memorandum of appeal, which was later on converted into a revision, had not been signed by the Appellants, Anand Kumar Gupta and his mother Smt. Ram Lali, the same was not competent and the learned First Additional District Judge fell in error in holding otherwise. In order to appreciate the argument, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 7 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. Sub -para (1) of Rule 7 being material is extracted here in below:

(3.) RULE 7 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 came up for construction in Smt. Vidyawati v. Chawli Devi : 1978 AWC 769. It was observed in that case: