GOVIND RAM Vs. JUGUL KISHOR PALIWAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Challenging the order of declaration of vacancy dated 24.7.2015 , the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was given to the petitioner before carrying out on the spot inspection of the property in dispute. The submission is that the petitioner is living in the disputed accommodation for the reason that house No. 762 Mohalla Rampuri, district Muzaffar Nagar which was purchased by him by registered sale deed dated 16.11.2011 is in occupation of some other person.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon Rule 8 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting Rent & Eviction) Rules, 1972(hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1972) to submit that after ascertaining the vacancy before passing order of allotment or release in respect of the disputed building, an inspection is to be carried out by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 8 of the Rules 1972 which provides the manner in which the inspection report is to be prepared. Further Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 8 of Rules 1972 provides that objection, if any, could be made on the inspection report. Rule 8 of Rules 1972 has been framed with a view to streamline the procedure of inspection in respect of building which is alleged to have been vacated under Sec. 12 of the Act. The submission is that the Tehasildar's report was taken into consideration by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for declaration of vacancy and hence procedure provided under Rule 8 of Rules 1972 as required to be followed by him was not followed and hence the order of declaration of vacancy is vitiated and deserves to be quashed.