JASWANT SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by an order dated 8.7.1991 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun, whereunder the accommodation in dispute had been released in favour of respondent No. 3 in the proceedings under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 which has been affirmed in revision under Section 18 of the said Act by respondent No. 1, the petitioner had approached this Court by means of the present writ petition seeking redress praying for the quashing of the said orders.

(2.) THIS writ petition was presented on 23.4.1993 on which date the learned Counsel for the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the order dated 25.4.1991, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer whereunder the premises in dispute were held and declared vacant under Section 12 of the said Act. Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the petitioner moved an application seeking permission to add certain grounds in the writ petition and two clauses in the prayer made in the writ petition. This application was allowed. Apart from the reliefs claimed in the writ petition to which a reference has been made above, after the amendment, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings started on the notice of vacancy under Section 15 of the Act culminating with the release order dated 8.7.1991 as being void and illegal and without jurisdiction. A further relief has also been claimed seeking the issue of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.4.1991 declaring the premises in dispute to be vacant.

(3.) THE facts, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the writ petition lie in a narrow compass. It appears from the record that on 11.9.1990 a notice under Section 15(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was sent by Mahendra Singh, respondent No. 3 to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer intimating that the building in dispute had fallen vacant as it was illegally occupied by Jaswant and Raju without allotment for last 4 or 5 years. On the same date Mahendra Singh, respondent No. 3 filed an application seeking release of the accommodation in dispute asserting that he had purchased the said building from its owner on 4.6.1982 and further asserting that Jaswant Singh was in unauthorised occupation of the said building without any allotment order. It was also asserted that since Jaswant and Raju had occupied the premises in dispute without any allotment order for the past about 4 or 5 years, the said premises was to be deemed to be vacant, which vacancy deserved to be notified. Shri Mahendra Singh made various allegations in the release application asserting that the premises in dispute was genuinely and bonafidely required for satisfying his need.