Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) BY these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26 -4 -1988 passed under Section 16(5) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the order dated 20 -1 -1990 passed under Section 18 of the Act. In the present case, the landlords have to pay heavy price of their absence and the incorrect actions of the Mukhtar -e -aam. According to the respondent No. 3, the disputed premises were left under the care of one Parvez Khan during their absence abroad, in whose favour a power of attorney was executed. Parvez Khan claiming himself to be the landlord gave intimation of vacancy in respect of the disputed building by showing that the building has been vacated by Arshad and Maqsood. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report on 25 -1 -84 and thereafter the vacancy was notified on 30 -1 -84. Allotment applications were filed by Mashkoor Ali Khan and Sarfaraz Khan who are brother and brother -in -law of Parvez Khan. Two more applications by Irshad and Shamshul Haq were also filed for allotment. Parvez Khan filed nomination under Section 17(2) in favour of Mashkoor Ali Khan and Sarfaraz Khan. By order dated 1 -3 -1984 the building in dispute was allotted in their favour by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and possession was also delivered.
(2.) THE landlord on coming to know of the aforesaid illegal proceedings filed an application under Section 16(5) on 17 -4 -1984 and alleged that in the power of attorney Parvez Khan was never given the powers of the landlord. He was only entrusted the powers as caretaker. The allotment orders have been obtained by fraud. It was further alleged that Parvez Khan alleging himself to be the landlord had no authority to nominate his own brother and brother -in -law for allotment of the disputed premises. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after affording opportunity to both the parties, by order dated 26 -4 -1988 allowed the application under Section 16(5) of the Act and set aside the allotment orders dated 1 -3 -1984 under which premises Nos. 13/221/1 and 13/221/2 were allotted in favour of Mashkoor Ali Khan and premises Nos. 13/221 and 13/221/2 were allotted to Sarfaraz Ali Khan. The revisions filed against the orders have also been dismissed by order dated 20 -1 -1990 by the VIth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur. The learned Judge has also affirmed the findings and has come to the conclusion that the power of attorney executed by respondent No. 3 in favour of Parvez Khan would indicate that he was not authorised to act as landlord. It was also held that Parvez Khan had no power to intimate vacancy and the story that the disputed premises were vacated by Arshad and Maqsood was a cooked story to obtain allotment in favour of his relatives by fraud and misrepresentation. It was further held that the allotment proceedings were void ab initio as no notice under Rules 8(2) and 9(3) was given to the actual landlord. The argument of the petitioners that the review petition under Section 16(5) was not maintainable was also repelled on the ground that the landlord had no intimation and if there was any delay, it has been sufficiently explained. Moreover as the allotment orders were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, they are bound to fail.
(3.) THE present petitions have been filed by the two allottees, namely, Sarfaraz Khan and Mashkoor Ali Khan challenging the orders dated 26 -4 -88 and 20 -1 -1990.;