S.P.Srivastava, J. - (1.) THE petitioner's father Narain Prasad was a tenant of the accomodation in dispute However, he was evicted therefrom on 24-11-80 in the proceedings under Section 16 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 after holding the aforesaid accomodation to be vacant and releasing the same in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 3.
(2.) IT appears that subsequent to the release the landlord instead of utilising the said premises for the purpose for which it was got released let out the same to Kailash Chandra, respondent No. 4 some where in the year 1983. On 18-3-85, the petitioner moved an application seeing allotment of the aforesaid premises in his favour on the ground that the said accomodation having been allowed to be occupied by respondent No 4 in contravention of the provisions of the U. P. Act No. 10 of 1972 would be deemed to be vacant and available for allotment, as the status of Kailash Chandra referred to above was that of an unauthorised occupant as envisaged under Section 13 of the said Act. Another application for allotment of the premises in dispute was filed by respondent No 4 who was occupying the premises and running his business therein as stated above. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after considering the evidence and materials on record found the status of the respondent No. 4 to be that of an anauthorised occupant and held that the premises in dispute was available for allotment. However, taking into consideration the fact that Narain Prasad the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner had been evicted from the premises in dispute for violating the provisions contained in the Act and further that the petitioner was not prosecuting his application for allotment as he was persistently remaining absent and was not caring to appear on the various dates fixed in the case inspite of information and further that the portion in dispute had been let out to Kailash Chandra by the Landlord who had been carring on business, therein for the past three years passed an order allowing the said premises in favour of respondent No 4. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the respondent No. 4 was a fit person for such an allotment. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent No. 1 which was dismissed vide the order dated 27-11-89 affirming the findings recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner has now approached this court by means of the present writ petition seeking the quashing of both the orders passed by the respondents No. 2 and 1 dated 28-2-87 and 27-11-1989 respectively.
(3.) IN the present case as is apparent from the record there is no dispute regarding the premises in question being vacant and available for allotment. IN the facts and circumstances of the case the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has preferred to allot the premises in dispute to respondents No. 4. This preference has been found by the revisional authority to be proper and in accordance with law. I have heard Sri J. C. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. N. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents and have perused the record.;