SHANTI DEVI Vs. INCHARGE DISTRICT JUDGE BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard petitioner's counsel Sri K. M. Garg and learned counsel for the caveator Sri Anil Sharma. Supplementary-affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 17.7.1998, 31.8.1998 and 3-9.1998 passed by respondent No. 2, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Bijnor. and also the order dated 11.9.1998 passed by, respondent No. 1 in the revision filed by the petitioner before the said authority. it appears that on the applications moved by petitioner for allotment and for release by respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the premises in question was got inspected by the Rent Control Inspector who reported that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the premises in question as she was occupying the same without an order of allotment, for the last 5-6 years. it further appears that the case of the petitioner before the R.C. and E.O. was that she has been in occupation of the accommodation in question since the time of the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for the last 15-16 years. She further pressed her prayer for making allotment of the accommodation in question in her favour. By the order dated 17.7.1998, the R.C. and E.O. declared vacancy and thereafter by a subsequent order dated 31.8.1998 he has made an order of release in favour of the landlords respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and thereafter notice in Form C was issued on 3.9.1998. The petitioner then filed revision before the District Judge. Bijnor, who has been pleased to dismiss the same by the order dated 11.9.1998.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly argued that since it was an undisputed fact that the petitioner is in occupation of the accommodation in question as a tenant with the consent of the previous landlord. the accommodation could not be deemed to be vacant and was thus not open either for allotment or release. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner must be rejected at the outset as even as per her own case, the petitioner came in occupation of the building in question about 15-16 years ago. that means she came to occupy the building in question in the year 1981-82 (much after commencement of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972). it is also not disputed that there is no order of allotment in her favour. in view of this admitted position of fact, the occupation of the petitioner was certainly unauthorised as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nootan Kumar v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Banda and others, 1993 (2) ALJ 437, and when the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation, the District Magistrate, under the provisions of the Act, had power to proceed to consider the applications for release or allotment, as the case may be, by treating the building in question vacant.