K.M.Dayal, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 11-12-1979 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly, ordering the petitioner to vacate the disputed accommodation under section 18(3) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) How the petitioner came into occupation of this accommodation is very relevant. The disputed quarter was occupied by one Baldeo Singh, a railway employee. The petitioner who was a Member of Legislative Council of the State, sent a letter to the District Magistrate asking him to allot the disputed quarter to him. He was already occupying another quarter in the same building. The letter addressed by him to the District Magistrate was not in the form prescribed under the Act nor it contained the information, which is required to be furnished in Form 'A' appended to the Rules framed under the Act. Orposire party No. 2. Upkar Singh, moved an application in the prescribed form for allotment of the premises in his favour on 15-9-1975. There was no other applicant. The District Magistrate asked the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to see him in that connection. On 6-10-1975. the following order was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing to the opposite party No. 2, Upkar Singh : "Discussed with D. M. He directed allotment of the house to Sri Ramesh Bikat, R.C.I. to issue necessary orders."
(3.) Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed by the opposite party No. 2 before the District Judge, which was dismissed on 23-2-1976. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 765 of 1976 was filed by Upkar Singh challenging the allotment order as well as order of District Judge, passed in appeal. U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was amended by U. P. Act No. XXVIII of 1976 which came into force on 15th July, 1976. The writ petition came up for hearing and was ultimately allowed on 13th of November, 1979 by this Court. The allotment order in favour of the present petitioner as well as the appellate order were both quashed and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was directed to decide the matter of allotment afresh. Thereafter an application was moved by the respondent No. 2 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer drawing his attention to the fact that inspite of the order of the High Court quashing the allotment in favour of the petitioner, he was continuing in occupation of the house. In reply to the same it was contended by the petitioner that during the intervening period, i.e. when the writ retention was pending bcfoie this Court, the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 had been amended. Due to the amendment of section 14, all the tenants or licensees, who were occupying the building with the consent of the landlord were deemed to be authorised occupants. The petitioner entered into a contract of tenancy with the landlord in pursuance of the allotment order dated 6.10.1975 and has been paying rent to him. Consequently the tenancy of the petitioner stood regularised. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the objection of the petitioner by his order dated 11.12.1979. He held that as the matter was being contested in the High Court, the benefit of Section 14, as amended by U.P. Act No. XXVIII of 1976 could not be given to the petitioner and he must vacate the accommodation.;