KAILASH KUMAR Vs. IVTH ADL DISTRICT JUDGE MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ pelition is directed against the order dated 30.5.1990 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer and as affirmed by the lower revisional court by the order dated 25.7.1990.

(2.) The facts in brief may be stated.

(3.) The dispute relates to a shop which was in the tenancy and occupation of one Rama Shanker. The landlord Shree Kripa Krishan filed suit for ejectment against the tenant-Rama Shanker and the said suit was decreed by Judge Small Cause Court on 26.9.1975. The revision filed by the tenant-Rama Shanker was also dismissed on 18.11.76 so also the second revision filed in this Court, by the order dated 21.3.1978. Even before the decree of eviction could be put in execution, one Kailash Kumar. who according to the respondents is a close relative of Rama Shanker. moved an application on 30.11.1981 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allotment of the shop in his favour stating therein that the shop was likely to fall vacant. A report was called for from the Rent Control Inspector who submitted his report on 9.12.1981 and thereafter by the order dated 7.1.1982, vacancy was declared,and 3.2.1982 was fixed for consideration of objection, if any. filed in the meantime. Since no objection was filed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 22.7.1982, allotted the shop in question to the petitioner, who also succeeded in obtaining possession on 26.7.1982. The landlord filed an application under Section 16 (5) of the Act stating therein that he had never been served with any notice at any stage of proceedings, which were initiated by the present petition in collusion with the outgoing tenant Rama Shanker against whom the landlord had obtained a decree of eviction and, thus, he was deprived of an opportunity of being heard before the order of allotment was made. The landlord also moved an application for the release of the shop in question for his personal use. Simultaneously, the landlord also filed Revision No. 23 of 1982 under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge challenging the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner. Before the said revision could be decided, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 9.8.1982 allowed the landlord's application moved under Section 16 (5) of the Act and cancelled the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner. Against this order dated 9.8.1982, the petitioner also filed rent Revision No. 27 of 1982 before the District Judge. Both the revisions came up for hearing before the District Judge who by a common judgment dated 4.11.1982 decided them and passed the following order :