LAL CHAND Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 6 -9 -1980 passed by Respondent No. 1 allowing the revision.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that consequent upon the tenant vacating a portion of house No. 7/955 Mohalla Chauntala, Saharanpur, the Petitioner filed an application for its allotment. A report was called for on such an application for allotment by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur, which was submitted on 3 -7 -1976. An objection against the said report was filed by the landlady Smt. Indrawati since deceased. A vacancy was declared on 23 -3 -1977 and was notified on the notice board of the office for information of the general public on 2 -3 -1977 Smt. Indrawati made an application on 1 -4 -1977 for the release of the disputed portion in her favour on the ground of her personal need. The application for release was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer whereupon the landlady Smt Indrawati filed a revision before the District Judge, Saluranpur. Such a revision was also dismissed though a review application was again filed before the District Judge. During the pendency of the review application Smt. Indrawati died. Another application as per the directions of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, baharanpur, was filed by the Petitioner who in compliance thereof filed an application on 22 -8 -1979. Again a report was called for by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur, from the Inspector. On the receipt of the report dated 29 -8 -1979, the vacancy was again notified. Objections were filed by Smt. Padmawati, Respondent No. 2 which, however, were rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur. The portion in question was then allotted to the Petitioner.

(3.) PARTIES have been heard at some length. The only contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Respondent No. 1 has wrongly applied the provisions of Rules 9(3) and 10(5) and the allotment order which was rightly made in his favour could not be deemed to have been vitiated on account of non -compliance of the said rules. I find no merit in this submission. It would be expedient to extract the provisions of Rules 9(3) and 10(5) of the Rules framed under U.P. Act XIII of 1972 for a fair determination of the controversy which are reproduced before: