VISHWANATH Vs. IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ETAWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this allottee's petition the first question that arises for consideration is whether revising authority had jurisdiction to record finding that the order declaring vacancy by the Prescribed Authority was bad as no notice was issued to opposite party landlady as required by rule 8 of the rules under U. P. Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act) even though his predecessor earlier had set aside the order for this very reason but did not direct the Prescribed Authority to issue notice as the landlady had agreed to appear and contest.

(2.) WHAT happened that petitioner who is in occupation of first floor on vacation of the ground floor of premises in dispute by Chandra Shekhar the tenant applied for allotment. An enquiry was made and the Rent Control Inspector after recording the statement of Chandra Shekhar reported that premises were vacant. The vacancy was notified, thereafter, and it was allotted to petitioner. No notice was given to the landlord. Against this order landlord filed revision. During pendency of revision he transferred the premises in dispute in favour of opposite party no. 3. It was urged before revising authority that as no notice was issued to landlord as required under Rule 8 the order was liable to be set aside. It was held that although ownership had changed but the landlady was only a transferee from the earlier landlord and as no notice was served on him the order could not be maintained. The revising authority therefore directed the Prescribed Authority, to decide the question of vacancy afresh 'as the landlady was' prepared to take such a notice now and even contest the proceedings regarding the vacancy of the accommodation. In pursuance of the direction the Prescribed Authority passed fresh orders and allotted the premises again to petitioner. This order was set aside again because no notice as required under Rule 8 was issued to the landlord.

(3.) IN these circumstances, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the revising authority is quashed. He is directed to decide the revision on merits in accordance with law. Petition allowed.