MADHU GOPAL Vs. VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This petition has been placed before us upon a reference by a learned Single Judge who found that there was a conflict of views on the interpretation and scope of section 16 (5) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short) between two learned Single Judges of this Court, viz., Brother B. N. Sapru and Brother S. C. Mathur. The decision of Brother Sapru is reported in 1984 (1) ARC 391, Shyam Dass v. Delegatee District Magistrate, Bijnor while that of brother Mathur is reported in 1981 ARC 241, B. Solomon v. Syed Iltifat Hussain. The reference is by brother V. K. Mehrotra who seems to agree with the opini on expressed by Brother S. C. Mathur.

(2.) THE submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties before us may be divided into two part. First, dealing with the issue whether the application filed by Dr. B. S. Saxena, the respondent no. 2 (one of the co- landlords of the premises in question) under Sec. 16 (5) of the Act for review of order of allotment dated 1-2-78 passed in favour of the petitioner Madhu Gopal, was maintainable in law and, second, whether the order of allotment was not made in accordance with clause (a) or(b) of section 16 (1).

(3.) BEFORE we elaborate these views and comment upon them, we may briefly set out the essential facts which lie within a narrow compass. Premises no. 1/300, Rawatpara Agra is a shop on the ground floor of which there are five owners, namely, R. C. Saxena, D. C. Saxena, Dr. B. S. Saxena (the respondent no. 3 herein) Veeresh Saxena (the respondent no. 4 herein) and Smt. Shanti Saxena. One of these co-owners Veeresh Saxena is said to have been carrying on chemist business in the shop at the relevant time. On 28-1-78 he wrote to the concerned authority under the Act that he was vacating the shop as he desired to close down his business. Some enquiry is said to have been carried out by the rent control inspector as regards whether there was a vacancy. A notice was issued to Veeresh Saxena to appear before the Prescribed Authority on 31-1-78 on which date he appeared and filed an affidavit stating that he was vacating the shop and that the same may be allotted to the petitioner Madhu Gopal. It is said that there was no other application for allotment. Acting on the affidavit of Veeresh Saxena the Prescribed Authority allotted the shop by an order dated 1-2-78 in favour of the petitioner Madhugopal.