V.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Arun Tandon learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.N. Sinha learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) With regard to the premises in dispute the Rent Control Inspector submitted a report on 17.9.1985 to Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The vacancy was declared. The vacancy was confirmed on 17.10.1985 and the premises was allotted to the petitioner on 28.10.1985. Thereafter respondent No. 1 moved an application for recall of the order declaring vacancy on the ground that no notice was served on him under Section 8 (2) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application. Thereafter the landlord filed a revision, which too was rejected on 4.8.1990. Thereafter the landlord filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25870 of 1990. On 29.3.1996 this Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide the question as to whether the petitioner was served with a notice before declaring the vacancy and again a notice was served on him as provided under Rule 9 (2) of the Rules framed under the 1972 Act. It was clearly mentioned by this Court that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was required to decide as to whether any notice was given to the landlord before the declaration of vacancy as provided by Rule 8 (2) of the Rules. In compliance of the orders passed by this Court the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of the landlord by order dated 22.8.1996 after drawing a presumption that though the records are not available, the Rent Control Inspector must have given a notice to the landlord before making the inspection. Respondent No. 1 challenged the order dated 22.8.1996 by way of revision. The revision filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed on 22.5.2002.
(3.) Sri Arun Tandon learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that once the Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that notice was given by the Rent Control Inspector to the landlord it was not open to the Revisional Court to re-appraise the finding. He further urged that this Court, in the operative part, only directed that the Court below should examine as to whether any notice was given prior to declaration of vacancy. It did not direct whether Rule 8 (2) was complied or not. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25870 of 1990 has been listed alongwith this petition. The judgment dated 29.3.1996 clearly demonstrates that just before the operative portion of order this Court had observed that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was required to decide as to whether any notice was given to the landlord as required by Rule 8 (2) of the Rules before declaration of vacancy. Therefore, the operative part which does not mention the word "Rule 8 (2)" has to be reconciled with the operative part and the only interpretation which can be given to it is that the intention, of the Court was that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was required to decide as to whether provision of Rule 8 (2) was complied with or not. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the basis of presumption has held that since the records are not available the notice must have been given by the Rent Control Inspector to the landlord. The Revisional Court, in my opinion, has rightly recorded a finding that provisions of Rule 8 (2) of the Rules was not complied with and no notice was served to the landlord by the Rent Control Inspector before he visited the premises. There is no material on record to support the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner.;