KAMAL NATH Vs. RAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR purposes of this petition filed by landlord's nominee against allotment order in favour of opposite party it is not necessary to narrate facts, prior to decision of writ petition and special appeal by this Court quashing order of State Government passed under Section 7 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 directing it to decide the revision afresh Suffice it to say that in 1974 this Court allowed writ petition No. 5431 of 1971 of the Petitioner and quashed the allotment order on 10 -10 -1974 as the landlady was residing in part of the accommodation, therefore, the tenant should have been of her choice. In special appeal No. 720 of 1975 filed by opposite party the order was modified and State Government was directed to decide the revision afresh and to find out if the land lady was in occupation of some part of the house other than the accommodation which was sought to be allotted and if so whether she was in occupation on the date of allotment order as these facts were essential for applicability of Section 7 of Act III of 1947. In pursuance of this direction, the State Government again decided the revision in favour of the opposite party and it has been held that one of the rooms in the premises in dispute was no doubt used by landlady for storing bhusa and chhuni but it was not in occupation when the allotment order was passed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the State Government are incorrect. According to him once he found that the landlady was in occupation of a room for storing bhusa and chuni, he decided the revision under misapprehension by observing that the disputed portion was not in her occupation. Learned Counsel urged that what was to be examined by the State Government was occupation of the landlady of the other portion than the portion in dispute. It is true that the finding that landlady was using one room for storing bhusa and chuni but she was not in occupation of disputed portion may appear contradictory at first flush but read with earlier part of the order, there appears no infirmity in the finding. It has been found that when objection was filed by landlady to allotment order in favour of opposite party she never claimed that she was in possession. From this it was inferred that she was not in possession on date of allotment. In drawing this inference from this circumstance the State Government does not appear to have committed any error of law.

(3.) IN the result, this petition fails and is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.