RAJNI RASTOGI Vs. ADDL. D.M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD -respondent Nos. 2 and 3 intimated that they would be vacating shop in dispute and thereafter they nominated the petitioner for allotment. The landlords had sent the intimation even before the actual vacancy. R.C.I., had also reported that previous tenant had vacated the shop long before and after vacation by the previous tenant landlords used the shop in dispute for very long time. In this background the observation of R.C. and E.O./A.D.M. (CS) Meerut that as landlord failed to intimate the vacancy after vacation by the previous tenant loses its efficacy. If the tenant vacated the shop in dispute several years before and thereafter it was in use and occupation of the landlord then question of failure to intimate the vacancy becomes redundant. If landlord is in possession of the shop for several years and intimates the R.C. and E.O. that he would be vacating the same in a short while then benefit of section 17 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 cannot be denied on the ground that landlord did not inform the vacancy to R.C. and E.O. hence provision of section 15 of U.P. Act No. 13/72 was not complied with. The earlier situation became closed chapter. The R.C. and E.O. rejected the allotment application of petitioner on the additional ground that application for allotment had been given in the name of Rajni Rastogi and Sons while details of partners of the said firm were no where given. Learned Counsel for petitioner states that only Rajni Rastogi was the applicant for allotment and "Rajni Rastogi and Sons" was merely a trade name and not partnership.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner further states that there was no other allotment application in respect of the property in dispute. In view of this fact order passed by the R.C. and E.O. dated 11.8.1988 rejecting the allotment application of the petitioner passed in Case No. 117/88, Rajni Rastogi v. Chandra Prakash, is erroneous in law and liable to be set aside. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.8.1988 is quashed. Allotment application of the petitioner stands allowed.