S.C.Matbur, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have directed this writ petition against the order of eviction passed against them in proceedings under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. THE petition has arisen in the circumstances hereinafter indicated.
(2.) THE dispute in the petition pertains to premises no. A 2/3 Niralanagar, Lucknow. THE premises was allotted to petitioner no. 1 Dr. U. C. Misra in the year, 1961. According to the petitioners averments ever since the allotment order the premises was occupied not only by petitioner no. 1 but also by his family comprising of himself, his father, mother and brother. At the time when the allotment was made he was not married but he married subsequently and after the marriage his wife also stayed in the said house. After he completed his education he got an appointment at Delhi and subsequently at Agra. In the year 1974 a notice was issued to the Tatsat Misra, real brother of petitioner no. 1 regarding eviction from the premises but the said notice was lateron discharged. Again on 23-4-1977 notice was issued to Dr. U. C. Misra, petitioner no. I, as well as to his cousin Shiva Kant Misra, petitioner no. 2. In this notice it was stated that in violation of the terms of the allotment order petitioner no. 1 had sublet the premises to petitioner no. 2. Both the petitioners filed a joint reply and contested the notice. THE Prescribed Authority, however, rejected the objections of the petitioners and ordered their eviction. This order has been upheld in appeal by the learned District Judge. Aggrieved by the order of eviction the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. On behalf of the petitioners I have heard their learned counsel Sri P. N. Mathur and on behalf of the Nagar Mahapalika I have heard Sri Jawahar Narain Bakshi through whom the counter affidavit was filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in view of the allegation made in the notice, Annexure-1, no order of eviction could be passed against the petitioners unless the allotment order or rent note was filed. The learned counsel argued that the allegation made against petitioner no. 1 was that in the violation of the terms of the allotment order he had sub-let the premises to petitioner no. 2. Whether the allotment order permitted sub-letting or not could be determined only on a perusal of the allotment order. This not having been done, the learned counsel contends, it has not been proved that petitioner no. 1 has violated the terms of the allotment order on the basis of which eviction is sought. The learned counsel is justified in advancing this argument. From a perusal of Annexure-1 it is apparent that the basis of the claim for eviction was that there had been violation of the terms of the allotment order. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition it has been specifically stated that the Nagar Mahapalika did not produce either the allotment order or rent note or the lease deed. It filed merely an affidavit of one of its employee, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3. This fact has been disputed but has been rather admitted in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit. In Tara Chand Gautam v. District Judge, Lucknow, W. P. No. 1017 of 1980, decided on 25-2-1981, K. N. Goyal, J. took the view that unless the allotment order was filed it could not be said that there had been any violation thereof and, therefore, an order of eviction could not be passed. I entirely agree with this view. In the present case also the allotment order cannot be sustained in view of the failure on the part of the Nagar Mahapalika to file a copy of the allotment order or lease deed.
(3.) MISS Alka Saxena appeared on behalf of Mrs. Laxmi Gautam in whose favour allotment has been made of the premises in dispute. She sought permission to argue on behalf of the allottee. I have heard her also. In view of the legal infirmity in the proceedings mentioned herein above the order of eviction cannot be sustained. Once the order of eviction cannot be sustained the allottee cannot claim delivery of possession. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the order dated 14-2-78 Annexure-9 passed by the Prescribed Authority opposite party no. 2 and the judgment dated 30-9-78 Annexure-10 passed by the learned District Judge, Lucknow are hereby quashed. Costs of this petition shall be easy. Petition allowed.;