DINESH KUMAR Vs. IIND A D J ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Gupta, J. Both these writ peti tions have been filed against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 14-9-78 declaring the accommoda tion in question vacant and the order dated 19-11-81 allotting the shop in question in favour of respondent No. 3 as well as the, order dated 1 -4-82 passed by the llnd Ad ditional District Judge, Aligarh dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners.

(2.) THE dispute relates to shop No. 123-A Madar Gate, Aligarh, which was under the tenancy of one Gulab Chandra Jain, Dr. R. K. Parashar, respondent No. 3 and one Gopal Krishna applied before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, respondent No. 2 for allotment of the aforesaid shop alleging that a vacancy has accrued, as the shop was in unauthorised occupation of the petitioners without any order of allotment in their favour. Petitioner Dinesh Kumar contested the said proceedings alleging that he was in occupation of the shop since 1-6-76 as the tenantwiththeconsentofthelandiordand his occupation stood regularised under Section 14 of the UP. Act No. 13 of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Respondent No. 2 however, found no force in the objection of the petitioner and vide order dated 4-9- 78 notified vacancy. Petitioner Dinesh Kumar as well as the petitioner of the connected writ petition Chandra Pal Varshney, who is the father of Dinesh Kumar, also moved applications for allotment of the shop. By the order dated 19-11-81 the disputed shop has been allotted in favour of respondent No. 3. Revisions filed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act have also been dis missed by respondent No. 1.

(3.) IT is also argued on behalf of the petitioner of the connected writ petition that the application for allotment made by Chandra Pal Varshney has not been con sidered on merits merely on the ground that he happened to be the father of Dinesh Kumar, who was found to be in unauthorised occupation of the shop in question. Thus according to petitioner's Counsel non-consideration of Chandra Pal's application amounts to an apparent error of law on the face of the record.