Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.4.2002, passed by Revisional Court in R.C.R. No. 2 of 1990. Annexure-11 to the writ petition, whereby the revision filed by the landlord has been allowed.
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that respondent No. 2 is the son of daughter of Pooranmal, who was allotted Nazul land to raise a house over it with the condition that it will be let out only to the Government servants. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of respondent No. 2. It is stated that one Sri Girdhari Lal, Deputy Superintendent of Police was the last tenant in the accommodation in question. He was transferred to another district and after his transfer the petitioner, who is local M.L.A., applied for allotment of the building in question. It is alleged by the respondents-landlord that petitioner, who was a local M.L.A., exercised his political influence over the authorities and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer without complying with the procedure prescribed under law declared vacancy in the accommodation in question on 16.6.1990 and on 7.7.1990, the allotment order was passed in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) Aggrieved by the orders dated 16.6.1990 and 7.7.1990, landlord filed a revision but along with the revision, according to the allegation made by the petitioner, copy of the orders impugned were not filed. This revision was filed in the year 1990 and it remained pending when by the impugned order, the respondent No. 1 allowed the revision and set aside the allotment order holding that the same has not been passed after following the procedure prescribed under law. It has also been recorded in the aforesaid order that in terms of the lease, the building could not have been allotted to the" present petitioner who was not a Government servant. In any view of the matter, Sri Girdhari Lal, Deputy Superintendent of Police was the last tenant and now he has been transferred. The information of vacancy was received in the office of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and once an application supported by an affidavit is filed for allotment of the building in question, the vacancy will have to be ascertained by the District Magistrate and for that purposes, Rule 8 of the rules framed under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will have to be followed. It is also alleged that neither Rule 8. nor Rule 9 was followed, inasmuch as no notice whatsoever has been given to the respondent-landlord either before declaring the vacancy or passing of the allotment order. Thus, the provisions of Rules 8 and 9, referred to above, were not followed. Apart from that, immediately after the receipt of the intimation of vacancy of any building in the office of the District Magistrate, ihe vacancy shall be entered in a register, which shall be maintained in that office in that behalf and be notified for the information of the general public by pasting a copy of the list of the vacant buildings on the notice board of that office, specifying therein the date on which it was declared vacant. The law further enjoins the obligations on the part of the District Magistrate to Issue a notice to the landlord intimating him the date so fixed and on the date so fixed the District Magistrate shall consider the case of all applicants registered in the register maintained under Rule 10 and shall pass an order-under Section 16 of the Act in accordance with Rules 10 and 11 after giving an opportunity to the landlord to raise objection, if any. In the present case, finding has been recorded that neither Rules 8 and 9, nor Rules 10 and 11 have been complied with Inasmuch as no notice has ever been pasted either on the notice board, nor the same has been entered into the register maintained for the list or the vacancy in the building and also no notice has been issued to the landlord before issuing allotment order. The requisite order, i.e.. notice itself demonstrates that it is because of the political influence of the petitioner, who was a sitting M.L.A.. the allotment order was passed on 7.7.1990. The respondent No. 1 has further held that in the file, there are three papers, namely, the order declaring the vacancy : the order of allotment and the grounds of revision. From the above said facts, which have not been disputed, it has been held by respondent No. 1 that "thus, if appears that the District Magistrate has passed the allotment order in question hurriedly without following the provisions under the Act, which are mandatory in nature, therefore, the allotment order dated 7.7.1990 passed by the District Magistrate is invalid and deserves to be quashed.' Coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the allotment order has been set aside and it is further held by the respondent No. 1 that it will be open to the revisionist, namely! the landlord to apply before the trial court for being placed in possession of demised premises forthwith.;