MADAN MOHAN SHARMA Vs. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BUILDING in dispute was allotted to petitioner on 7.12.1979 on the basis of nomination of landlord respondent No. 4 Banwari Lal who has been impleaded through order of Court dated 19.1.1984. Against the allotment order the revision was filed by Communist Party of India through its Secretary. In the revision it was pleaded that the accommodation in dispute had earlier been allotted to Communist Party of India and Sri Ganga Prasad was Ex -Secretary of Communist Party of India who had wrongly intimated that building had been vacated by him. It was further asserted that as the building was not allotted to him in his personal capacity, hence there was no question of vacating the building by him. Revision was registered as U.P.U.B. Revision No. 8 of 1980. III -Additional District Judge, Aligarh by order dated 19.8.1981 allowed the revision and held that the allotment was vitiated in law as prescribed procedure particularly under Rules 8, 9,10 and 11 framed under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 had not been followed. One of the grounds taken by the Revisional Court is that the name of petitioner allottee was not entered in the register of the applicants for allotment. Revisional Court further held that the vacancy was not notified on the notice board. Revisional Court remanded the matter to R.C. & E.O. During arguments no one appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Bhartiya Communist Party of India and its Ex -Secretary who filed the revision. I perused the counter affidavit filed on their behalf. In the counter affidavit it has not been stated that at the time of allotment to the petitioner Communist Party of India was in possession.

(2.) AS the matter is quite old (Allotment order was passed 2 years before) and as the petitioner is in possession for 25 year hence in the interest of justice, I do not consider it proper disturb the existing state of affairs.

(3.) IN my opinion non -compliance of Rules 8 to 12 may be asserted as a ground by a party whose interest is adversely affected in real sense like landlord or a tenant who has illegally been evicted or is likely to be so evicted. In this case landlord is supporting the case of petitioner allottee and the alleged previous tenant. Bhartiya Communist Party of India has neither stated in the counter -affidavit that at the time of allotment it was in possession nor any one on its behalf is present. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by Revisional Court is set aside.