PARVEEN AZAD Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BADAUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are common 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, Mal Godam Road, Badaun. 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 allotted 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 accommodation in question be treated as vacant. They need the accommodation bona fide for their residential purpose. One Suresh Kumar also filed an application for its allotment.

(3.) The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Badaun asked for a report from the Rent Control Inspector. The Rent Control Inspector submitted report on 18th November, 1995 that Ramesh Chandra Gupta was in its occupation. He had already vacated it and thereafter in the year 1990 it was declared as vacant and later on allotted to P. C. Agarwal on 20th February, 1991. He was in unauthorised occupation. On 21.11.1995 Smt. Parveen Azad, the petitioner filed application for allotment of the house in question on the allegation that she is residing in the village and has no accommodation in the City. She requires the accommodation to live in city. Shri Ramesh Chandra Gupta filed an objection on 28.11.1995 that though he has been transferred to another district but he has not been given accommodation in the district where he has been transferred and the accommodation should not be treated as vacant, The Rent Control Inspector again submitted a report on 29.11.1995 that the accommodation should be treated as vacant. The landlord filed another application for release on 30th November, 1995.