- (1.) THIS petition, at the instance of the landlord, was filed for a direction to the District Magistrate/Delegated Authority under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') to deliver vacant possession of Shop No.573, Budhana Gate, Meerut, which was under the use and occupation of the unauthorized occupant Braj Bhushan-respondent no.3, to the petitioner. The petition was subsequently amended and further reliefs were claimed for quashing the order dated 26th May, 2009 passed by the Prescribed Authority/District Supply Officer, Meerut by which the application filed by the landlord under Section 16 of the Act for release of the shop was rejected as also the order dated 28th May, 2009 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the shop was allotted to respondent no.4-Man Mohan Rastogi. An additional prayer was also made that the Prescribed Authority should decide the release application filed by the landlord after giving opportunity of hearing to the landlord.
(2.) THE disputed shop No.573, Budhana Gate, Meerut, of which the petitioner is the landlord, was allotted by the Prescribed Authority in favour of Mohan Lal but an application was filed by Girish Chandra Agarwal before the Prescribed Authority for alloting the shop in his favour after declaring vacancy as Mohan Lal had permitted it to be occupied by Braj Bhushan. THE landlord also filed an application under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act for release of the shop as the landlord bona fide required it for the purpose of carrying on his business of Cyber Cafe. THE Prescribed Authority declared the shop to be vacant under Section 12 of the Act by the order dated 29th March, 2001. THE said order declaring vacancy was assailed by Braj Bhushan in Writ Petition No.12953 of 2001 in which initially an interim order was passed on 9th April, 2001 but the writ petition was eventually dismissed by the judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2009. The landlord, therefore, filed an application before the Prescribed Authority on 28th April, 2009 for delivery of possession of the premises to the landlord and for passing appropriate orders on the release application. Braj Bhushan, however, preferred Special Leave Petition No.10738 of 2009 before the Supreme Court which petition was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 11th May, 2009 but Braj Bhushan was granted three months' time to vacate the premises subject to his filing an undertaking in the Supreme Court within two weeks. Braj Bhushan did not file the undertaking in the Supreme Court within two weeks and as Braj Bhushan did not handover the possession of the shop to the landlord even after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the landlord filed Contempt Petition No.277 of 2009 before the Supreme Court. In the Contempt Petition Braj Bhushan filed a compliance affidavit on 13th July, 2009 mentioning therein that he had vacated the premises on 29th May, 2009 in the presence of independent witnesses and had given possession to the landlord but the landlord did not issue any possession certificate to him. The Contempt Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court by the judgment and order dated 31st August, 2009 which is quoted below:- "Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case as alleged by the petitioner, we do not find that any case has been made out for initiation of contempt proceedings against the contemnors. The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, this order shall not prevent the petitioner from approaching the appropriate authority for redressal of the grievances." The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application dated 6th November, 2009 before the District Magistrate/Delegated Authority that appropriate orders for delivery of possession of the shop to the petitioner may be passed as Braj Bhushan had falsely stated that possession of the shop had been given to the landlord. This application was marked by the District Magistrate to the Prescribed Authority on 12th November, 2009. As possession of the shop was still not given to the landlord, the present petition was filed by the landlord with the prayer that the District Magistrate may issue appropriate orders for giving possession of the shop to the petitioner. On 9th December, 2009, the Court granted a week's time to the learned Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit on behalf of the District Magistrate, Meerut to explain why possession of the shop was not delivered to the petitioner.
(3.) IN response to the aforesaid order of the Court, the District Magistrate, Meerut filed a counter affidavit stating that the application filed by the landlord for release of the shop was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 26th May, 2009 and, thereafter, the Prescribed Authority allotted the shop in favour of Man Mohan Rastogi by the order dated 28th May, 2009. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that after the allotment order was issued on 29th May, 2009 and the possession of the shop was handed over to the landlord by Braj Bhushan on 29th May, 2009 and thereafter the landlord delivered the possession of the shop to Man Mohan Rastogi on 29th May, 2009 and since then Man Mohan Rastogi is in actual physical possession of the shop. The petitioner, therefore, filed an Amendment Application for adding paragraphs 23-A to 23-T in the writ petition and for adding prayers for quashing the orders dated 26th May, 2009 and 28th May, 2009 and for consideration of the release application filed by the petitioner after hearing him. A prayer for impleading Man Mohan Rastogi as respondent no.4 was also made. This Amendment Application was allowed by the order dated 31st December, 2009 and the Court also directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the original records relating to the allotment proceedings including the order sheet and the report submitted by the Process Server as well as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer regarding sufficiency of service upon the petitioner. Man Mohan Rastogi was also impleaded as respondent no.4 in the Writ Petition and he has also filed a counter affidavit to the writ petition.;