MOHD SIDDIQ Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M. A. Siddiqui for the petitioner and Sri B. K. Shukla for the respondent No. 2 who is the landlady of the premises In question which is a shop bearing No. 1160/9/41/69 measuring 8 feet x 20 feet situated at Mohalla Subhash Nagar, Faizabad. This shop was vacated by earlier tenant, namely, Mohd. Akhtar. The petitioner applied for its allotment on which an enquiry was directed to be made by the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Faizabad (in short R.C.E.O.) and thereafter vacancy was declared. After declaration of vacancy, two applications for release of the shop in question were moved by respondent No. 2 in her favour. The first application was not verified hence, second application was moved verifying the contents thereof but requisite court fee stamp was not affixed thereon. Thereafter, the R.C.E.O. rejected the release application on merits holding that the need of the landlady was not genuine and allotted the shop in question vide his order dated 30.6.1986. Thereafter, a revision under Section 18 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed before the District Judge, Faizabad by the landlady-respondent No. 2 which was registered as Civil Revision No. 93 of 1986, Pushp Lata v. Mohd. Siddiq, against the aforesaid order of the R.C.E.O. The learned District Judge allowed the revision and ordered for release of the premises in question in favour of respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 13.10.1988. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised contention that the application for release was not verified properly and the second application which was duly verified did not bear the court fee stamp and hence, both the applications should have been rejected on technical ground ; that the need of the landlady was discussed first and after rejecting the release application, allotment was considered and the shop in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner, which was a legal order ; that the learned District Judge, Faizabad has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order of release of the shop in question in favour of the landlady while allowing the revision and that the findings of fact could not have been reversed by the learned District Judge while deciding the revision and in case, ultimately the revision was liable to be allowed, the matter should have been remanded to the R.C.E.O. for rehearing.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Sri B. K. Shukla has contended that the prospective allottee had no right to be heard before the decision on release application of the landlady by the R.C.E.O. and the R.C.E.O. had erred in giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while deciding the release application. He has further contended that the need of the landlady was genuine and it has also not been mentioned that business was being done in the shop and in the counter-affidavit, it has specifically stated that the respondent No. 2 being a lady could not collect the details but a perusal of Annexure-4 to the writ petition, shows that the petitioner had admitted that he is a Salesman in Railway shop and a person who Is a Salesman at some other place, he has got no time to run his own shop and on account of lack of accommodation the respondent No. 2 is facing hardship as her husband is also residing with her. He has further submitted that during the pendency of the case, if any need is mentioned then it has to be considered by the R.C.E.O. but that has not been done.