SMT. SUNEHRI DEVI Vs. SMT. RADHA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition was earlier allowed by me on 15.5.2006 without hearing any one on behalf of respondents as no one had appeared. Thereafter rehearing application was filed which was allowed on 9.2.2007 and arguments of learned Counsel for both the parties on the merit of the writ petition were also heard on the same date. Meanwhile counter and rejoinder affidavits had been exchanged.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against allotment order under section 16 of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 passed by R.C. & E.O./D.S.O. Meerut on 8.8.2002 in Case No. 26 of 2000 Mukesh v. Sunehri Devi. Earlier building had been declared to be vacant on 25.7.2002. In the allotment order rent was fixed to be Rs. 150/ - per month. Against allotment order petitioner landlady filed Revision No. 66 of 2003. A.D.J. Court No. 14 Meerut through judgment and order dated 18.5.2004 dismissed the revision. The said order has also been challenged through this writ petition. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of my earlier judgment which contained the points involved in the writ petition and the two authorities of the Supreme Court on the said points are quoted below:

(3.) VACANCY declaration order an allotment order are erroneous in law and without jurisdiction on the additional ground that no notice at any of the three stages was served upon the landlady petitioner i.e., before inspection, before declaring vacancy and before making allotment. I have discussed this aspect in detail in the authority in C.K. Nagarkar v. A.D.J. Gorakhpur : 2004 (2) ARC 349. In the said authority, I have placed reliance upon several Supreme Court authorities. In the instant case no notice was sent through registered post. In the aforesaid authority of C.K. Nagarkar, I have held that notice should be issued through registered post. Two affidavits were filed by the landlady before the Revisional Court, copies of which have been filed in this writ petition alongwith II Supplementary Affidavit. In one of the said affidavits sworn on 16.10.2002, it was stated that the notice purported to be issued to the petitioner did not contain the number of her house. Revisional Court did not take into consideration the said assertion. As far as notice before inspection is concerned, it is clear from the report of R.C.I. that no such notice was issued. There is no mention of any such notice in the said report. The only thing which has been mentioned therein is that notice was sent to the landlady under Rule 8(2) of the Rules framed under the Act. In the vacancy declaration order, it is not mentioned that notice was issued to the landlady. By virtue of Supreme Court authority in Ganpat Roy v. A.D.M. : 1985 (11) ALR 423 (SC), vacancy declaration order was illegal and without jurisdiction on this ground alone.