J.C.GUPTA,J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 13 -1 -1998 and 26 -10 -1994 passed by Respondent No. 1 and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur respectively contained in Annexures 7 and 1 of the writ petition.
(2.) THE dispute relates to house No. 49/13, Gatta Mill Colony, Saharanpur, which was in the tenancy of Pyarey Lal Jain. Respondent No. 2 Hulash Rai Singhal made an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allotment of the said house stating therein that the house had fallen vacant on account of the tenant having ceased to occupy the same as he has removed his effects therefrom and had shifted to Faridabad with his son and other family members. On this application a report was called for from the Rent Control Inspector who vide his report dated 18 -10 -1993 reported that the tenant Sri Pyarey Lal Jain has permanently shifted to Faridabad and the house in question was open for allotment on account of deemed vacancy. By the order dated 4 -11 -1994 vacancy was declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. On 7 -12 -1993 the tenant Sri P.L. Jain filed review application stating therein that he was living in the premises with his family and paying rent to the landlord. He also filed Writ Petition No. 3540 of 1994 challenging the order dated 4 -11 -1993 whereby vacancy was declared. The High Court stayed dispossession of tenant Sri P.L. Jain upto 30 -4 -1994 and the same was not extended. It is also note -worthy that though dispossession of Sri P.L. Jain was stayed upto 30 -4 -1994 but proceedings pending before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer were not stayed. Consequently the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 26 -10 -1994 rejected the review application and the accommodation in question was allotted in favour of Respondent No. 2 by the order dated 26 -10 -1994. Challenging the order of allotment Sri P.L. Jain filed revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. During the pendency of the said revision Sri P.L. Jain expired on 23 -12 -1995. Though under Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Act substitution application was to be moved within one month from the date of the death of the deceased party, the petitioners moved substitution application on 5 -4 -1996 stating therein that they were entitled to be substituted in place of deceased Sri P.L. Jain. It may be relevant to mention here that petitioner No. 1 Smt. Suloch Rani Jain is wife of the pre -deceased son of Sri P.L. Jain while Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are children of Vijay Jain the predeceased son of deceased -tenant P.L. Jain. They alleged that they were the only legal heirs of deceased P.L. Jain and were residing in the house in question. Objections were filed by Respondents No. 2 and 3 supported by counter affidavit inter - alia on the grounds that no death certificate of P.L. Jain was filed with the application; that the place of death of Sri P.L. Jain was not disclosed in the application; and that detailed facts regarding occupation of the petitioners were not given and it was specifically alleged that none of the petitioners resided with the deceased -tenant at the time of his death. The Revisional Court by the impugned order rejected the substitution application holding that no cogent evidence has been filed from the side of petitioners with regard to the place of death of P.L. Jain nor it has been proved that the petitioners were residing with the deceased - tenant at the time of his death and further that it has been proved by the respondents that Sri P.L. Jain had left the disputed property long before his death. The revision was accordingly dismissed as abated. This writ petition has been contested by both Respondents No. 2 and 3 i.e. the allottee and the landlord respectively. Counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavit have been filed. Arguments of Counsel were also heard and when the case was taken up for further hearing petitioners' Counsel Sri H.N. Sharma did not appear. The Court heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate and Ashish Kumar Singh for Respondent No. 3 and Sri Mohd. Yusuf for Respondent No. 2. The Court also allowed ten days time to the parties for filing written submissions, if any. Only Respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed written submissions and not the petitioners.
(3.) SRI Ravi Kiran Jain also apprised the Court that Sri P.L. Jain was tenant @ Rs. 50.45 p. and no rent has been paid from March, 1998, therefore, approximately rent of more than Rs. 2,500 has become due which neither the petitioners have paid nor landlord is able to realize the same from Respondent No. 2, the allottee.;