R.H.ZAIDI, J. - (1.) PRESENT petition arises out of proceedings under Section 16 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 16-8-2000 whereby revisions filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 against the order of allotment dated 16-1-1986 and against the order dated 13-6-1986 dismissing the application under Section 16(5) of the Act, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, were allowed by the revisional authority, IV Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur.
(2.) THE facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that one Ayodhya Nath Dey happened to be the owner and landlord of the building in ques­tion. He died leaving behind Smt. Latika Sarkar, Respondent No. 3, (daughter) and Deepu @ Subiechar Dey (son). During his life time, he had executed a will on 10-1-1997 in favour of his daughter. Smt. Latika Sarkar, bequeathing the property in dis­pute in her favour. It appears that an ap­plication for allotment of building in ques­tion was made by one Smt. Sharda Devi wife of the petitioner, on 18.1.1985 on the basis of which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer ordered the Rent Control Inspec­tor to inspect the building and submit his report, which was submitted. Thereafter, notice is alleged to have been issued to Deepu alias Subichar Day S/o. Ayodhya Nath Dey, in the meantime the petitioner who happens to be the husband of Smt. Sharda Devi, also applied for allotment of building in question. It is stated that the said application was made with an endor­sement of consent of Smt. Sharda Devi on it to the effect that the building in question may be allotted in favour of the petitioner. The building in question is stated to be declared as vacant on 6-1-1986 and was allotted to the petitioner on 10-1- 1986. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner is also alleged to have taken possession of the said building. Respondent No. 3, in the meanwhile, is alleged to have sold the building in question in favour of Respon­dent No. 2, Smt. Prem Rani Srivastava, through a registered sale deed dated 3-2-1986. As soon as the Respondent No. 3 came to know about the order of allot­ment, she filed a review under Section 16(5) of the Act challenging the validity of the order dated 16-1-1986. A revision is also alleged to have been filed by respon­dents No. 2 and 3 against the said order. It was on 13-6-1986 that the application filed under Section 16(5) was dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Chal­lenging the validity of the said order, another revision was filed by respondents No. 2 and 3. Both the aforesaid revisions were connected and consolidated by the revisional Court and were heard together. The aforesaid revisions were filed by the contesting Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 con­tending that the entire proceedings of al­lotment were conducted and concluded in contravention of the provisions of the Act, particularly, Sections 12 and 16 and Rules 8, 9 and 14 of the Rules framed under the Act. They were, therefore, null and void and the impugned orders were liable to be quashed. The revisional Court, Respon­dent No. 1, afforded full opportunity of hearing to the parties and ultimately upheld the objection raised by the contest­ing respondents against the impugned or­ders and allowed the two revisions by his judgment and order dated 16-8-2000. The operative portion of the said judgment is quoted below:- Challenging the validity of the aforesaid order, present petition has been filed by the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that before the building in question was declared vacant and was allotted in favour of the petitioner, the procedure prescribed for the same under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, was followed. It was urged that the notice was rightly issued to Deepu Dey. As he did not file any objection, therefore, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rightly proceeded with the case and declared the building in question as vacant and there­after rightly allotted it in favour of the petitioner. There was no illegality or infir­mity in the order passed by the Rent Con­trol and Eviction Officer declaring the vacancy or allotting the same in favour of the petitioner. It was also urged that the application under Section 16(5) of the Act was rightly dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.;