JAIRAJ SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS 1 and 2 are the owners of bungalow No. 110 -B, Civil Lines Bareilly. Towards the south of the aforesaid Kothi, there were four residential quarters. One of them had been let out to one S.N. Verma, Provident Fund Inspector, Bareilly. In 1975 S.N. Verma was transferred from Bareilly. However before he vacated the premises, an application for allotment was filed by Ajai Kumar, Respondent 4, to the District Magistrate, Bareilly, for allotment of the said premises. On the said application, the District Magistrate made the following:

(2.) IT may be noted that the application itself was filed by Respondent 4 on that date. Along with the said endorsement, the application was sent to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. On 7 -11 -1975, he directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to notify the vacancy, if the premises was vacant. The Rent Control Inspector made an enquiry and submitted a report that S.N. Verma was in the process of leaving the quarter, and that the premises was vacant for the purposes of allotment. Consequent upon the aforesaid report, on 7 -11 -1975 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer notified the vacancy inviting applications for consideration on 13 -11 -1975. A notice of this proceeding was sent to the landlords, Petitioners 1 and 2 also. The Petitioners 1 and 2 appeared before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and filed an objection. The objection was that as the premises was not covered by U.P. Act XIII of 1972, no proceedings for its allotment could be taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.

(3.) THE first point urged by Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, counsel appearing for the Petitioners, was that the learned Additional District Judge committed an error in holding that the appeal filed by the Petitioners was incompetent because it was not accompanied by a certified copy of the order of allotment of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Rule 7(2) of the rules framed under U.P. Act XIII of 1972 provides that every memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the order sought to be appealed or revised. Sub -rule (4) of the aforesaid Rule 7 provides for a contingency where the filing of a certified copy of such an order may be dispensed with. It lays down that if an Appellant gives adequate reasons for not being able to file the certified copy of the order on an affidavit, the appellate authority could dispense with the filing of the same. In such an event, a copy filed along with an affidavit will be treated as correct.