S.P.Srivastava - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking re-allotment of the premises in dispute in his favour as contemplated under rule 10 (6) Proviso) (b) of the Rules framed under the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act, 1972 U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972 which order was affirmed in revision by the respondent no. 1.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court for redress seeking the quashing thereof. The facts, in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are that the accommodation in dispute had initially been let out to the petitioner and was occupied by him and the members of his family for residential purpose. It appears that in the year 1982, the petitioner constructed a separate residential unit in Rishikesh which had two rooms of the size of 8'x8' and two rooms of the size 12'x10' and 8'x8' apart from kitchen, bathroom and latrine. The accommodation which' was in his tenancy consisted of two rooms of the size of 7.6'x9' and 10"x9' and the third room of the size of 6'x6' apart from kitchen and latrine. Since with the construction of the aforesaid house a residential building within the meaning of section 12 (3) of the Act stood acquired in a vacant state by him a vacancy in respect of the premises its dispute under his tenancy came into existence by fiction of law as envisaged under section 12 (3) of the Act. Taking advantage of the aforesaid fast an application seeking allotment of the building which was in occupation of the petitioner as tenant was filed by Sri Vinod Kumar Sharma on 9-2-84. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the vacancy in respect; of the accommodation in dispute under the order dated 20-11-84 passed by him. The effect of the declaration of the vacancy was that the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner became available for allotment or release. The landlord-respondent filed an application seeking release of the aforesaid application. Thus there was an application seeking allotment of the accommodation and another application seeking its release. In the circumstances the petitioner moved an application seeking re-allotment of the accommodation in dispute in his favour asserting that on account of relieving congestion in the house under the tenancy It had become necessary to acquire separate accommodation and the accommodation available in the newly constructed house was not such where the entire family of the petitioner could shift. It was asserted that the newly built house was being utilised by petitioner's married son Rishi Kumar Sharma, his wife and two small children who had separated messing and were residing there. It was further asserted that the accommodation in dispute was being utilised for residential purpose by the petitioner, his wife bis unmarried daughter and other son Om Prakash. It was further asserted that the room of the size of 8'x8' was being utilised as store room, one room was being utilised by the daughter of the petitioner and his third son and the third room was being utilised by the petitioner and bis wife for Jiving purposes as well as Baithak, In the above circumstances, it was asserted that the accommodation in dispute be re-allotted in his favour otherwise he will be put to an irreparable loss. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer under his orders dated 17-4-85 rejected the aforesaid application simply observing that the newly constructed house of the petitioner had sufficient accommodation. After rejecting the application for re-allotment the Rent Control and Eviction Officer proceeded to consider the application for release and under the same order released the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord.
(3.) THE order rejecting the application for re-allotment was challenged by the petitioner before the revising authority respondent no. 1 without any success. THE respondent no. 1 under his order dated 8-5-86 affirmed the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the ground that it had been clearly observed therein that the accommodation available in the house built by Jauhari Dutt was sufficient. THE revisional court was of the view that the question as to whether the accommodation available in the house constructed by the petitioner was sufficient for his family was a question of fact and since the newly built house had more accommodation than the portion which was in the tenancy of the petitioner where the entire family had been living before the construction of new bouse, there was no justification for interfering with the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. THE revisional court, however, observed that no doubt the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was brief sand the evidence had not been discussed in detail but the order was supported by the evidence on record and could not be said to be pervese or against law. I have heard Sri R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition and Sri L. P. Naithani learned counsel for the landlord in opposition.;