ARUN KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ORAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of house No. 566, situate in Mohalla Ram Nagar, Orai, District Jalaun. The petitioner alleges that his tenant Sri I.E. Singh vacated the premises in June, 1972. Thereafter, he took possession of the house. An allotment order was passed by respondent No. 2. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Jalaun in favour of respondent No. 3 Brijbasi Lal, without any notice and without complying with the provisions of Rule 8(2) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act 1972. It is alleged that the petitioner after coming to know of the order tried to obtain a certified copy of the allotment order, but no such copy was given to him. He, there after filed an appeal before the respondent No. 1, District Judge, Orai which was dismissed. No counter-affidavit has been filed in the pre sent case by the respondents. This being so, the allegation of facts contained in the petitioner have to be taken to be correct. The addi tional District Judge, which is an appellate authority, has on a consi deration of the material on the record, found that the erstwhile ten ant Sri I.E. Singh vacated the premises in June, 1973, and not in June 1972 as alleged by the petitioner. He has further found that he was in possession of the premises without an order of allotment. In view of these findings, he upheld the order of allotment in favour of res pondent No.3.

(2.) INASMUCH as on the material available in the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Jalaun, before passing the allotment order, recourse to material which had been obtained ex parte by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cannot form a good basis for the finding of the appellate authority. Rule 8 of the Rules framed under 1972 Act, provides for an opportunity being given to the landlord and to prospective tenants to apply for allotment of premises which fall vacant. The Rule has obviously been introduced in order to safe guard the interest of the landlord and prospective allottees. The landlord can, when inspection is made by the Inspector, bring to his notice that the accommodation is not vacant and after the Inspector's report and its being pasted on the notice board, can file objections against the report. So far as prospective allottees are concerned, they can also, after receiving information by inspection of the notice board at the office of the District Magistrate, apply for allotment of ac commodation which is vacant or is likely to fall vacant. The proce dure set out in Rule 8 of 1972 Act has been designed to comply with the requirements of the principles of natural justice, and also to give a fair opportunity to all persons who may be in need of the accommo dation. Rule 8 (2) of the Rules has not been complied with. The appellate authority however, came to the conclusion that non-compli ance of Rule 8 (2) of the Act did not vitiate the order of the Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer, Jalaun. This view is not sound. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Act, enshrines principles of natural justice, and gives an opportunity to prospective allottee to apply for accommoda tion which is, or is likely to fall vacant. Without compliance with Rule 8 (2) the order of allotment would be violative of the principles of natural justice, and would not satisfy the legislative intent enshrined in Rule 8. The fact that the District Magistrate has to postpone mak ing of allotment, till such time that the objections to the Inspector's report are not decided, and that he has to decide the objections after considering the evidence, which is led by the objector or any other person concerned in these proceedings, make it amply clear that it was necessary for the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to comply with the requirements of Rule 8 (2) fully, before making the allot ment. The order of allotment as such has to be struck down on this ground alone. In view of the fact that the order of allotment is in valid on account of breach of Rule 8 (2) of the Rules, the appellate order confirming it cannot also be sustained.