ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Jain against the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Mainpuri exercising the power under Section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and remanding the matter back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for reconsideration in accordance with law.

(2.) Heard Sri R.N. Bhalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner None is present on behalf of the contesting respondents.

(3.) Sri Bhalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the application filed by the petitioner the proceedings were initiated before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the effect that the accommodation which is under the tenancy of the respondent No. 3, Mithlesh Kumar Bhansali, was declared vacant and the same was allotted in favour of the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Jain by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and when petitioner applied for execution of the order of allotment by filling up the Form 16-D, an application for review was filed by the respondent No. 3, Mithlesh Kumar Bhansali to the effect that he is the tenant and he has never been informed of any such proceeding pursuant whereof the vacancy was declared vacant nor was informed of allotment made in favour of the petitioner, Ashok Kumar Jain. He is in possession of the accommodation and in fact, petitioner, Ashok Kumar Jain played a fraud and obtained an order declaring vacancy and consequent thereof got allotted the accommodation in his favour by concealing facts. He therefore, filed an application for review of the allotment order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after considering the material on record arrived at the conclusion that no ground for review is made out, he therefore, rejected the application for review of the allotment order passed by him in favour of Ashok Kumar Jain. Aggrieved thereby respondent No. 3, Mithlesh Kumar Bhansali preferred a revision under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge. The District Judge by the impugned order has directed that the respondent No. 3 is living in the aforesaid accommodation by virtue of allotment order issued in his favour and allotment order has never been cancelled therefore, the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in declaring vacancy and consequently allotting the accommodation in favour of the petitioner, was not in consonance with the principle of natural justice. The revisional Court further held that there is no evidence to show that the inspector concerned had given notice to the sitting tenant and the landlord concerned before making inspection and submitting inspection report on the basis whereof the accommodation was declared vacant. It further held that there is no mention in his report that the accommodation was actually vacant and yet strangely enough the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had relied such facts in his order dated 1.1.1986 and also placed reliance on the fact mentioned in the inspection report of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Thus, on the principle that even the landlord has not been given notice, the revisional Court set aside the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and directed the matter to be reconsidered in accordance with law by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It is this order, which is under challenge here.