A.K.YOG, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Rafat Ahmad Jamal Alvi claiming to be the tenant (but branded as an unauthorised occupant by the landlord and prospective allottee -respondent No. 3 respectively) of a part of first floor house No. 808/504 Rajapur, Allahabad, has approached this Court by means of the present petition under Article 226, Constitution of India being aggrieved against the order dated January 3, 2002 (Annexure -1 to the petition), whereby Rent Control and Eviction Officer -1, Allahabad rejected the objections of the occupant petitioner against Rent Control Inspector's Report dated 7 -12 -2000 (Annexure -3 to the petition) on the ground of non compliance of the statutory provisions of Rule 8 (2) by not giving notice and/or obtaining information from occupant petitioner while making spot inspection and further directing that occupant petitioner may submit his objection evidence, which may be desired, in the Court before the next date fixed namely 11 -1 -2002.
(2.) IT may be noted that concerned Rent Control and Eviction Officer initiated 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 called 'the Act') on the basis of an application for allotment dated 29 -8 -2000 Annexure -2 to the petition filed by one Rajesh Umrao/respondent No. 2. The allotment application Annexure -2 shows that in Clause 15, the applicant Rajesh Umrao has categorically mentioned that petitioner Rafat Ahmad Jamal Alvi was in occupation of first floor portion of house in question. The Inspector's Report dated 17 -12 -2000 (Annexure -3 to the petition) does not indicate that notice was given by the concerned Inspector to the landlord and/or the occupant. Rule 8 reads: (1) The District Magistrate, shall before making any order of allotment or release in respect of any building which is alleged to be vacant under Section 12 or to be otherwise vacant or to be likely to fall vacant, get the same inspected. (2) The inspection of the building, so far possible, shall be made in the presence of the landlord and the tenant or any other occupant. The facts mentioned ink the report should wherever practicable be elicited from at least two respectable persons in the locality and the conclusion of the inspection report shall be pasted on the notice board of the office of the District Magistrate for the information of the general public, and an order of allotment may be passed not before the expiration of three days from the date of such posting, and if in the mean time any objection is received, not before the disposal of such objection. (3) Any objection under sub -rule (2) shall be decided after consideration of any evidence that the objector or any other person concerned may adduce.
(3.) IN the case of S.L. Kherv. District Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Nainital and another, 2000 (1) ARC 148 (A.K. Yog, J.) this Court had the occasion to consider said Rule 8 and in para 4 of its judgment noted: - .........Provisions contained in Rule 8 cast obligation on the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to get inspection done after giving notice to the occupant of the accommodation in question. Rule 8 (2) quoted in paragraph 20 of the Writ Petition shows that Rent Control Inspector ought to have made inspection 'as far as possible' in presence of landlord and tenant or any occupant. There is no explanation as to what effort was made to serve........ ;