SHANTI DEVI Vs. 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Reg. of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972), hereinafter referred to as ' the Act. '

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present case are as follows : THE property in dispute is bouse No. 141A Mohalla Shiv Datt Golaothi district Bulandshahr. THE petitioner, Smt. Shanti Devi, is living in a portion of the said building. THE eastern 2/3rd portion of the building had been let out to the U. P. State Electricity Board. A suit no. 462 of 1969 was filed by the petitioner against the U. P. State Electricity Board for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages. This suit was decreed on 25th May, 1974. Against the order dated 25th May, 1974 a revision was filed before the Distt. Judge on the 23rd April, 1976. After the revision was dismissed by the District Judge, the petitioner moved an application for execution of the decree on 9th July, 1976. This execution application was registered as Execution Case No. 39 of 1976. In execution of her decree, the petitioner got possession of a portion of building let out to the U. P. State Electricity Board, but subsequently it appears that the possession was again taken back from the petitioner and the result was that the petitioner's decree for ejectment remained unexecuted.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions before me. The first contention is that once the order of release was passed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property (it cannot be ?) allotted to respondent no. 3, the allotment order is wholly without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. The second contention is that he was not given an opportunity by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before declaring the accommodation as vacated and as such, the allotment order is invalid and the third submission made by learned counsel is that the petitioner was not given a notice as required by Rule 9 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act and as such also the allotment order is void in law.