D S RANA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON question of law and fact being involved, these two writ petitions were heard together for being disposed of by a common order with the consent of thee parties learned counsel.

(2.) THE dispute in writ petition No. 29883 of 1992, Dr. D. S. Rana v. District Judge, Dehradun and others; relates to out houses of Manmohan Cottage Estate situate at Mall Mussoorie and in writ petition No. 19884 of 1992, Abdul Hamid v. District Judge, Dehradun and others, relates to two out houses situate in Walnut Grove Estate at Mall Mussorie, of which the respondents no. 3 and 4 are in landlords. THE premises in dispute known as Manmohan Cottage out houses, consists of a room on the ground floor of the building at Mall Mussoorie. It was in the tenancy of Dr. D. S. Rana. Similarly the premises in dispute known as Walnut grove estate situate at Mall Mussoorie consists of two out houses on the ground floor and was in the tenancy of Abdul Hamid. THE respondents no 3 and 4 purchased the premises in dispute and moved an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the petitioner tenants. It appears that the applications were rejected and thereafter the respondents landlord moved a common application for release under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act on the ground of deemed vacancy under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the vacancy and thereafter released the premises in favour of the respondent landlords vide order dated 15-5-1987. THE tenants petitioners went up in revision. Rent Control revision no. 116 of 1987 and Rent Control revision no. 147 of 1987 were filed by Dr. D. S Rana and Abdul Hamid respectively. Both the revisions ware allowed by separate orders dated 10-5-1988, 31-8-1988 respectively, and the matter was remanded back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide the ease afresh in accordance with the observations made in the body of the aforesaid judgments. It was held by the Revisional Court that the order dated 6-5-1987 declaring vacancy was illegal in that it was not stated by the landlords in evidence as to who were the persons who were allowed by Dr. Rana to occupy the tenanted premises and in the case of Abdul Hamid the order dated 6-8-1987 declaring vacancy was held to be vitiated on the ground of non-consideration of material evidence. It may be stated that in case of the premises under the tenancy of Abdul Hamid it was alleged that he allowed one Anwar to occupy the premises which gave rise to deemed vacancy in as much as Anwar was not a member of the tenant's family.

(3.) IT appears that the order could not be passed on 23-5-1991 and the file was put up before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 25-5- 1991, on which date lawyers were on strike, therefore the file was ordered to be put up on 13-6-1991 and on that day it was ordered to be put up on 21-6-1991 for orders on the question of vacancy in as much as the order could not be prepared due to reason of the fact that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was busy in hearing of other cases. IT appears that on 14-6-1991 an application was moved on behalf of the landlords for a surprise inspection under rule 27 (2) of the Rules made under the Act, so that the truth may be ascertained as to who was in actual occupation of the premises in dispute. The accommodation was inspected on 21-6-1991 behind the back of the tenant-petitioners and without any notice to them IT is said that at the time of inspection the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found Udai Singh in possession of the premises in the tenancy of Dr. D. S. Rana and the one in the tenancy of Abdul Hamid was found to be in occupation of his brother and brother's family members. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer on consideration of the evidence on record and the fact allegedly found on spot inspection Declared the vacancy vide order dated 22-6-1991. Revisions preferred against the said order were dismissed by a common order dated 3-8- 1992. IT is the validity of the order dated 26-6- 1991 and 3-8-1992 which is under challenge in these two writ petitions.