AMAR NATH MEHROTRA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in the instant case relates to premises no. 12, Meerganj, Allahabad. Smt. Shashi Prabha Agarwal respondent No. 3 is the allottee of the premises. R. N. Mehrotra respondent No. 4 who claimed to be the sole owner of the premises in question applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer giving his consent to the allotment of the premises in favour of respondent No. 3. On 25-3-1974 an allotment order was passed. THE petitioner filed an application on 6-5-1974 in which it was prayed that the allotment order in favour of Sashi Prabha Agrawal be cancelled. His case was that R. N. Mehrotra was one of the co-owners of the property, that the family of the petitioner including respondent No. 4 and three others constituted a joint Hindu family of which the petitioner was the Karta. THE respondent No. 4 has no right to give his consent to the allotment of the premises in favour of respondent No. 3. It was also alleged that the allotment order had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority. An appeal was filed before the District Judge, Allahabad which has been dismissed on 9-10-1974; hence the present writ petition.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. The petitioner's counsel has submitted that the impugned order of District Judge is erroneous. On the face of the record, his argument is that the objections which have been taken by the petitioners have not been considered by the District Judge. The first objection was that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and 3 others were the members of a joint Hindu family and the petitioner was the Karta thereof. Respondent No. 4 has no right to give his consent to the allotment of the premises in favour of respondent No. 3. It may be noted here that the premises in question was never allotted before to any tenant.

(3.) FOR the reasons given by me above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 31/5/1974 and the order passed in appeal by the District Judge on 9/10/1974 are hereby quashed. The case is remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide the case in accordance with law. In the circumstances cost shall abide by the result. Petition allowed.