R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.3.1986 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Faizabad allowing a revision arising out of the proceedings under Section 16(5) 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' filed by the respondent No. 2 against the order dated 2.5.1983 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Faizabad. Relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are co -owners and landlords of the residential building No. 69, situated at Mohalla Sahebganj, Faizabad City, hereinafter referred to, the 'building in dispute'. The said building in dispute was under allotment and under the tenancy of Manohar Lal Sharma before 1973. On an application filed by petitioner No. 1 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, the building in dispute was released in her favour by the Prescribed Authority. It has been stated that the mother and the brother of petitioner No. 1 used to live at Varanasi; that the leg of her mother was fractured, she was consequently confined to bed and was under medical treatment of Varanasi. Petitioner No. 1 used to go to Varanasi to look after her mother but she continued to reside at Faizabad permanently to look after her considerable agricultural land situated there. Sometimes while going to Varanasi, petitioner No. 1 used to lock the building in dispute. Sometimes it was left open for temporary use and under the supervision of her near relations. Once, while the petitioner was at Varanasi and the building was locked, one Bhagwan Din Pandey applied for allotment of the said building on 6.2.1979 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who, in turn, asked for the report of the Rent Control Inspector by his order dated 17.2.1979. The Rent Control Inspector inspected the building without any intimation to the petitioner No. 1 from outside and submitted his report that there were two owners of the building in dispute, i.e. petitioners, that the building was locked for quite sometime and expressed his opinion that the same could be treated as vacant, in the inspection report dated 27.2.1979. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on the basis of the said report, called the parties. When the petitioner No. 1 came to know about the said allotment proceedings, she filed her objections on 13.7.1979 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer contending that the building in dispute was released in her favour under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, the same was neither vacant nor was likely to fall vacant and she did not want to let out the said building to anyone. She requested that it may not be allotted in favour of any person. The copies of the objections filed by the petitioner No. 1 are contained in Annexures 3 and 4 to the writ petition. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, ignoring the said objections and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, declared the building in dispute as vacant by his order dated 22.8.1979 merely because the same was found locked by the Rent Control Inspector. The petitioner No. 2 who was in government service and was holding a transferable job, as soon as he came to know about the declaration of vacancy, filed his objection against the order dated 22.8.1979, on 5.9.1979. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer ignoring the objections of the petitioners and the provisions of the Act, allotted the building in dispute by his order dated 17.10.1979 in favour of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, without following the procedure prescribed under the law, broke open the lock and entered the building forcibly on the strength of the order of allotment in his favour. He has also stolen and misappropriated the properties of the petitioners. The sister -in -law of the petitioner No. 2, as she came to know about the said illegal activities of respondent No. 2, filed a First Information Report at police station Kotwali, Faizabad against the respondent No. 2 about the said occurrence, a copy of which is contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition. Thereafter, petitioner No. 2 claiming himself as co -owner and co -landlord of the building in dispute filed a review application under Section 16(5) of the Act contending that the orders of declaration of vacancy and allotment were not passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the same were liable to be reviewed and set aside. On the application filed by the petitioner No. 2 notice was issued to the respondent No. 2 who filed his objection on receipt of the notice from the office of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, mainly contending that the review application filed by the petitioner No. 2 was legally not maintainable. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after hearing the parties allowed the review application by his judgment and order dated 2.5.1983 holding that the building in dispute was released in favour of petitioner No. 1 while the petitioner No. 2 was in government service and that the same was never let out nor the order of release was in any manner violated in terms of Section 24 of the Act, the same was, therefore, out of the purview of the Act and could not be allotted. The respondent No. 2, challenging the validity of the order dated 2.5.1983, filed a revision before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 although held that review application filed by the petitioner No. 2 was maintainable but allowed the revision after reappraising the evidence on the record and without reversing the aforesaid findings recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by his judgment and order dated 17.3.1986. Hence the present petition.
(2.) ON the present petition, notices were directed to be issued to the respondents on 6.5.1986. After service of notice upon respondent No. 2, a counter affidavit, in reply of the facts stated in the writ petition, was filed by respondent No. 2 controverting the facts stated in the writ petition and asserting that the order of allotment was validly passed in his favour by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioners also filed a rejoinder affidavit reiterating and reasserting the facts stated in the writ petition and claiming that the order passed by the respondent No. 1 was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, the same was, therefore, liable to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently urged that admittedly the building in dispute was released in favour of petitioner No. 1, the same went out of the purview of the Act and could not be allotted unless it was let out or order of release was violated by the petitioners in any manner in terms of Section 24 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer initially acted illegally and without jurisdiction and allotted the building in dispute in favour of respondent No. 2 but the said mistake was rectified subsequently and the order of allotment was rightly set aside holding that the building in dispute was neither let out by the petitioners nor order of release was violated by them in any manner. It was also held that the objection/application under Rule 10(9) was pending disposal, therefore, building in dispute could not be allotted in favour of the respondent No. 2 and rightly cancelled the order of allotment. It was urged that the revisional authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in reappraising the evidence and setting aside the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer without lawfully reversing the findings recorded by him, therefore, the impugned order passed by the revisional authority was liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 supported the validity of the order passed by respondent No. 1. It was urged that the building in dispute was legally allotted in favour of the said respondent by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer after following the procedure prescribed for the same and the petitioner No. 2 had no right to file the review application as he was neither a landlord nor in lawful occupation of the said building. The revisional authority rightly set aside the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. This petition has got no merits, the same was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on the record.;