SHAMSHAD AHMAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.10.1980 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotting the accommodation to respondent No. 3 and the order of respondent No. 1 dismissing the revision against the said order on 19.12.1980.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that one Harbans Lal was tenant of Premises No. 64, Munnuganj, Dehradun, of which the petitioner is landlord. He constructed his own house at Keshav Nagar, Dehradun and intimated to the landlord on 16.6.1980 that he would vacate the house in the last week of the month and will hand over its possession. On the basis of this information, the petitioner intimated to the District Magistrate under Section 15 (1) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (in short the Act) that Harbans Lal, the tenant, is to vacate the accommodation. In the prescribed form in column 'the actual or expected date of vacancy', he mentioned the date of vacancy as 24.6.1980. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on receiving this intimation, asked the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. The Inspector made a local inspection. The tenant informed him that he has constructed his house at Keshav Nagar and is likely to vacate within two or three days. The Inspector submitted a report on 10th July, 1980 to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the accommodation in question as vacant.

(3.) The petitioner on 16th July, 1980 nominated Sri Datar Singh, respondent No. 4, for the purpose of allotment under Section 17 (1) of the Act. Sri Datar Singh applied for allotment of the premises, Respondent No. 3 also made an application for allotment of the premises. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 14.10.1980 held that Section 17 (1) of the Act was not applicable inasmuch as the vacancy was not notified under Section 17 (1) but under Section 12 (3) of the Act and, therefore, the premises in question could not be allotted to the nominee of the petitioner. He allotted the accommodation in question in favour of respondent No. 3. Against this order, the petitioner and Datar Singh filed separate revisions. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the revision on 19.12.1980.