R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Present petition arises out of proceedings under Section 16 read with Section 12 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), (for short the Act), and is directed against the order dated 2.8.2000 allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 against the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Nainital, dated 25.5.1998 whereby the objection against the order of allotment dated 9.9.1992 made in favour of petitioner was rejected.
(2.) The disputes relates to a shop owned by respondent No. 3, Om Prakash Agarwal situated in Mohalla Rahamkhani, Doctor's Lane, Kashipur, district Udham Singh Nagar which was in occupation of the respondent No. 2, Ashok Kumar Bhutani as a tenant. On an application filed by the petitioner for allotment of the shop in dispute, proceedings were initiated. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to make local inspection and submit a report. The report is said to have been submitted on 22.9.1992. Thereafter, notice to the landlord was issued to show cause as to why the shop in dispute be not declared vacant. No notice, according to the findings recorded by the authorities below, was issued to respondent No. 2. The Inspector reported that respondent No. 3 was the owner of the shop in dispute who has consented for allotment of the said shop in favour of the petitioner and that the shop was vacant. On the basis of the said report, the shop in dispute was declared vacant on 19.5.1992 and notice was issued inviting applications for allotment. The respondent No. 3 on 24.6.1992 applied for release of the shop in dispute in his favour under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. However, the said application was dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as not maintainable, on 18.8.1992. Thereafter, an application is slated to have been filed on 26.8.1992 by the petitioner that he and Om Prakash (Landlord) have resolved their differences amicably and Om Prakash has agreed that the shop in dispute may be allotted in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of which allotment order was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in favour of the petitioner on 9.9.1992. It was on 14.10.1992 that an application was filed by respondent No. 2, under Section 16 (5) of the Act challenging the validity of the order of vacancy and allotment on the ground that the petitioner and Om Prakash have acted in collusion with each other and have procured the order of allotment wholly illegally without any notice to him and behind his back. It was stated that respondent No. 2 was in occupation of the shop in dispute and was paying rent to the landlord Shri Om Prakash, that there was dispute between him and the landlord regarding enhancement of rent. A suit for ejectment was also stated to have been filed by the landlord against him in the Small Causes Court which was dismissed on 7.7.1990. Since then, he has been depositing the rent in the Court of Munsif, Kashipur. The petitioner and Om Prakash have deliberately suppressed the material facts. Neither any inspection of the shop in dispute was ever made nor he was given notice either by the Rent Control Inspector or by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the order of declaration of vacancy as well as the order of allotment in favour of the petitioner were passed behind his back, they were, therefore, liable to be recalled. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, however, dismissed the application filed by the respondent No. 3 by judgment and order dated 25.5.1998. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, respondent No. 3 filed a revision before the Court below under Section 18 of the Act contending that the order of allotment in favour of the petitioner was passed without following the procedure prescribed for the same under the law, it was, therefore, liable to be set aside. The Court below recorded clear and categorical finding that the landlord Om Prakash himself admitted that Ashok Kumar Bhutani, respondent No. 2 was his tenant in the shop in dispute. He himself on 24.6.1992 made an application for release, which was dismissed by respondent No. 1 as not maintainable. It was held by the revisional authority that the order dated 25.5.1998 suffered from material irregularity and that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has acted against the provisions of law in passing the aforesaid order and allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 25.5.1998, the application dated 14.10.1992 was also allowed by his judgment and order dated 2.8.2000, hence the present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the respondent No. 1 was not right in holding that the order dated 25.5.1992 was passed illegally by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and that the said order suffered from material irregularity. According to him, the order of allotment was passed after following the procedure prescribed for the same under the law, therefore, the impugned order dated 2.8.2000 was liable to be quashed.;