DINESH KUMAR Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Dinesh Kumar, who is applicant for allotment of the accommodation in dispute, which is covered by the. provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after referred to as 'the Act', challenges the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Muzaffarnagar, dated 15th December, 2004 and 19th October, 2005, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-'13' and '15', respectively to the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that Smt. Suman Goel, wife of Sudhir Kumar was the landlord, who entered into a registered agreement with regard to sale of the accommodation in dispute with Smt. Punam Goel, wife of Purshottam Kumar. The then tenant Satyapal Tyagi has vacated the accommodation, which is in dispute. The petitioner filed an application for allotment of the accommodation in dispute on the ground that there is a vacancy and he is in need of the aforesaid accommodation, therefore, the same may be allotted to him. On the basis of the aforesaid application for allotment filed by the petitioner, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued notices to all the parties, inviting their objections, if any. Smt Suman Goel filed her objection stating the facts referred to above. She has further asserted that pursuant to the agreement to sale with Smt. Punam Goel, the possession has been delivered to her, who is in possession of the accommodation in dispute. Thus, there is no vacancy, therefore the application filed by the petitioner for allotment of the accommodation in dispute is liable to be rejected. Smt. Punam Goel in her objection stated that there is a registered agreement to sale for the accommodation in dispute with Smt. Suman Goel and that she has been delivered possession pursuant to the aforesaid agreement to sale. She also asserted that there is no vacancy and the application for allotment is liable to be rejected.

(3.) The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 15th December, 2004, found that in fact there is a vacancy with regard to the accommodation in dispute and directed the vacancy to be notified. After the order dated 15th December, 2004, Smt. Punam Goel filed an application that if there is vacancy, the accommodation in dispute may be released in her favour. The petitioner filed a review application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as contemplated under Section 16(5) of 'the Act' seeking review of the order dated 15th December, 2004. During the pendency of the review application, Smt. Punam Goel filed an affidavit to the effect that she has become the owner of the accommodation in dispute by virtue of the registered sale deed duly executed by Smt. Suman Goel. Smt. Punam Goel also filed an application for release of the accommodation in her favour as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found by his order dated 15th December, 2004, that there is a vacancy in the accommodation in dispute. This statement of Smt. Punam Goel has been denied by the petitioner, who had filed a review application and it is asserted by the petitioner that in fact Smt. Suman Goel and Smt. Punam Goel belongs the same family and are in hand and gloves, in order to defeat the purpose of the petitioner's application. The petitioner further asserted that pursuant to the declaration of vacancy, the same ought to have been allotted in favour of the petitioner.