R.S. Pathak, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner prays for certiorari against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Meerut dated June 27, 1969 allotting the accommodation in dispute to the Post and Telegraph Department.
(2.) THE Petitioners are the owners of the premises 369 Khair Nagar, Meerut. It is alleged by them that they were in possession of a part of the building whereas the remaining portion was occupied by the State Bank of India. The State Bank of India vacated the portion occupied by them on December 13, 1967 and thereupon -the Petitioners applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for release of the accommodation in their favour. Subsequently, however, on April 17, 1969 the Petitioners received a notice purporting to be Under Section 7(1)(a) read with Section 8 of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act pointing out that the accommodation in the occupation of the State Bank had fallen vacant and the Petitioners had failed to intimate the vacancy as required by Section 7(1)(a) and therefore, they should show cause why action should not be taken against them Under Section 8 also and why the accommodation should not be allotted to some needy person. In reply the Petitioners pointed out the circumstances in which they had come to occupy the accommodation after the State Bank had moved out of it and prayed that in any event the application may be considered as one praying for relief in favour of the Petitioners. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Nand Kishore. Upon this the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Meerut made the impugned order. He did not accept the assertion of the Petitioners that when the State Bank vacated the accommodation the Petitioners had applied for its release in their favour. He also pointed out that it was not shown that the second Petitioner, Girish Chandra, was related to the first Petitioner, Nand Kishore. In his estimate, the accommodation in the possession of Nand Kishore was sufficient for his requirement. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the Respondents before me.
(3.) THERE can be no doubt that even though it be assumed that an application for release was not made immediately after the State Bank vacated the accommodation in question, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was bound to consider the application filed in reply to the notice issued Under Section 7(1)(a) as an application in that behalf. The accommodation had not been allotted yet and so long as it was not allotted it was open to the Petitioners to apply for release of the accommodation. Therefore, whether or not the Petitioners had made any earlier application for the release of the accommodation appears to be without significance.;