KANTA DEVIS Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions arise out of the same proceedings and hence taken up together and since counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged, they are disposed of finally by this common order.

(2.) In Writ Petition No. 17432 of 1997, a prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 5.1.1996 and 4.4.97 (Annexures-'8' and '10' respectively to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1.

(3.) Facts relevant may be stated in brief. The dispute relates to a shop. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of this writ petition, namely Jai Klshan and Arun Kumar (for convenience sake to be referred as J.A.) came into occupation of the disputed shop on 19.6.85 under a lease deed executed between them and the landlord, but admittedly without any allotment order in their favour by the District Magistrate. Since provisions of U. P. Act No. XITI of 1972 (briefly, the Act) were applicable, vacancy was declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (R. C. & E. O.) by his order dated 11.10.91 treating J.A. to be in unauthorised occupation in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The order declaring vacancy became final and the same was never challenged by J.A., rather it is admitted to them in the connected writ petitions that a vacancy in law had actually occurred. J.A. applied for allotment of the shop in question whereas the landlord, father of the petitioner applied for the release of the same for the bona fide need of one of his sons, namely, Raj Kumar. By the order dated 16.4.92, the shop was allotted in favour of J.A. The landlord filed revision before the District Judge challenging the said order of allotment on the ground that there has been no consideration of his release application before making allotment order. The revision was allowed by the District Judge by his order dated 17.4.1995 and the order of allotment made in favour of J.A. was quashed and the case was remanded to the R. C. & E. O. for consideration of landlord's application for release. This order also became final as the same was never challenged by J.A. During the pendency of the proceedings before the R. C. & E. O. after remand, the landlord Jageshwar Dayal expired on 29.6.95. The application for substitution was then moved by the petitioners as legal heirs of the deceased landlord Including Raj Kumar for whose benefit the release was sought. The substitution application was allowed by the order dated 17.10.95 and the legal representatives were ordered to be brought on record. It appears that no formal amendment, however, could be carried out in the release application, accordingly the petitioner moved an application on 1.12.95 for permission to incorporate the said formal amendment in the release application. This application was allowed by the R, C. & E. O. on payment of Rs. 50 as costs by the order dated 1.12.95. It may be relevant to mention here that J.A. themselves in their application for allotment had also applied for substitution of the names of the petitioners as the legal representatives of the deceased landlord. The release application was ultimately allowed by the R C. & E. O. by his order dated 5.12,1995.