KANTA GUPTA Vs. VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN allotment order under the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) has been set aside by the learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut in revision under Section 18 of the Act, aforesaid. Having considered the matter at length the District Judge in his judgment of 23rd March, 1987, which has been impugned in the present writ petition came to the conclusion that the possession of the petitioner in the premises she occupies at No. 125-A Soti Ganj (first floor) Begum Bridge, Meerut is illegal, as it was obtained in pursuance of an allotment order which itself was occasioned by adopting clandestine ways'. In effect, the Distinct Judge came to the conclusion that there is neither any deemed vacancy in the premises in question and thus the allotment order passed was without jurisdiction. The learned District Judge also declared that both the orders, in effect of the District Magistrate under the Act aforesaid declaring a vacancy and thereafter passing an allotment order were illegal on the ground that the landlord was never given any notice to contest either the vacancy, or the allotment proceedings. The order declaring a vacancy in the premises aforesaid and the subsequent order allotting the premises to the petitioner were set aside by the District Judge.

(2.) BEFORE this Court examines the legality of the orders of the District Judge dated 23rd March, 1987 in revision, it is relevant to examine the origin of the set of circumstances which occasioned the allotment order in pursuance of which petitioner took possession of the premises in dispute. Thus the question to find the root of the cause which occasioned (a) the vacancy and (b) an allotment order in favour of the petitioner. The procedure which gives rise to an information upon a vacancy in the premises is set to Rule 8.

(3.) NO notice was given to the landlord of an inspection which was made in pursuance of an exercise to ascertain vacancy in the premises. The landlord was not present as she could not be when the inspection of the premises was caused on 2nd May, 1985 she was without notice of it. The Inspector records that he found a restaurant running at the premises. The name of the restaurant was 'Marwari Bhoj' and it was intimated to him that it was a business venture between Trilok Chand and the petitioner. The Inspector further records that as a consequence of his inspection he has come to the conclusion that the landlord has permitted the premises to be occupied by the aforesaid Trilok Chand, which act is illegal under Section 12 of the Act aforesaid. According to him, thus, a vacancy had occurred. At this stage it is appropriate to see Section 12 in reference to the context :