PRAVEEN AZAD Vs. FIRST ADDI DISTRICT JUDGE BADAUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. There are com mon questions of law and fact in these two writ petitions and they are being disposed of jointly.

(2.) THE dispute relates to house No. 397, Civil Lines, Mai Godam Road, Budaun. One Jalaluddin was owner of this property and Ramesh Chandra Gupta was its tenant. He was transferred and on his transfer the building was declared as vacant in the year 1990. After declaration of vacancy it was alloted to Sri P. C. Agarwal on 20th February, 1991. Jalaluddin, owner of this property, sold the house in question to Mishri Lal and his son Yogendra Pal by registered sale-deeds dated 5th March, 1993 and 20th March, 1993. Sri P. C. Agarwal was in Government service. He was transferred to another district. On 24-1-1994 the landlords filed application for release of the disputed accommodation on the allegation that P. C. Agarwal has vacated this house on his transfer to another district. THE accom modation in question be treated as vacant. THEy need the accommodation bonafide for their residential purpose. One Suresh Kumar also filed an application for its allot ment.

(3.) SRI Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that respondent No. 1 illegally held that the landlord was entitled to a notice under the proviso to Section 16 of the Act. Proviso to Section 16 (1) of the Act provides that in the case of vacancy referred to under sub-section (4), the District Magistrate shall give an oppor tunity to the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be of showing that the said Section is not attracted to the case before making an order under clause (a ). The landlord him self having filed an application for release on the ground that the accommodation was vacant, he was not required to be given a separate notice under this proviso.