GOPAL SINGH Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Both the learned counsel are agreed that this writ may be decided finally at this stage.

(2.) THE facts given rise to this writ petition are that an application for allotment was filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun in respect of House No. 15, Dhamawala Bazar, Dehradun. On this application Rent Control Inspector submitted a report on 25th October, 1990. Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 9th September, 1991, declared the accommodation in dispute as vacant. It may be pointed out that during the pendency of the proceedings landlord respondent No. 3 also filed an application for release of the accommodation in his favour. Aggrieved by the order dated 9th September, 1991 declaring vacancy, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order declaring vacancy is based on the statement of petitioner recorded in SCC Suit No. 31 of 1988. The statement of petitioner has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. This statement, in examination-in-chief, petitioner has stated that he residing in house in dispute since 1973 and paying rent to landlord-respondent. However, in cross-examination it was stated that the room, in which he is presently residing, was previously occupied by Chaudhry Arjun Singh and when the accommodation was vacated by Arjun Singh he started residing in that room and during that period he was residing in the room adjoining to the present room. In this statement he also stated that previously he was residing in Patel Nagar. The vacancy has been declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the basis of this statement. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not recorded any reason for declaring vacancy. He has concluded the matter in four lines. He has not given any reason as to which of the two dates mentioned by the petitioner in respect of his occupation of the house in dispute was correct. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the report of the Inspector was also wrong in this connection. It has been said that no notice was given to petitioner before inspection and the fact recorded in the report that the local inspection has been made in the presence of the parties was not correct and objection was filed by the petitioner in this regard, which has not been decided. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in case decided by this Court taking the view that non-compliance of Rule 8(1) shall vitiate the order.