Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a firm and is owner and landlord of one room along with the bathroom and a box room and a projected balcony on the second floor of the building No. 31/52, Rawatpara, Agra. This portion of the building was previously in the tenancy of Sri Om Prakash Jain on a monthly rent of Rs. 105/ - per month. Sri Om Prakash Jain fell in arrears of rent and the petitioner issued a notice to him determining his tenancy. It appears that Om Prakash Jain handed over possession to Gopal Das Singhal illegally without any intimation or knowledge to the landlord. It further transpires that Gopal Das Singhal obtained an allotment order dated 21.3.1978 in his name from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner came to know about this allotment order on 25.11.1978 and thereafter, filed a revision under section 18 of the Act along with an application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was condoned by an order dated 6.12.1980. The revision was, however, dismissed by an order dated 22.1.1986. The petitioner has now challenged the allotment order and the revisional order in this writ petition. Notice was sent to the respondent No. 3 by registered post. Inspite of service, the respondent No. 3 has failed to appear. Heard, Sri R.N. Bhalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3.
(2.) IN paragraph No. 14 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the firm, namely, Kokamal Gopal Das is the owner and landlord of the accommodation in question. In paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that the respondent No. 3 has his own house at Pattar Galli, Namak Mandi, Agra. In paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that the respondent No. 3 is not residing in the accommodation in question and the said accommodation is being kept locked since the allotment order. In paragraph No. 15 of the writ petition it has been alleged that since the allotment order, the respondent No. 3 has not paid a single paisa towards the rent. All these allegations remain unrebutted since the respondent No. 3 has not appeared before this Court. A perusal of the allotment order indicates that the owner of the disputed accommodation is one Sri M.K. Agarwal to whom such notices were sent. The petitioner in his revision has categorically stated that the firm is the owner and the landlord and Sri M.K. Agarwal is only the Karta. The Revisional Court held that the notice to the Karta was sufficient notice and that the Karta is the landlord.
(3.) IN my view, the approach adopted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Revisional Court is erroneous and therefore, the allotment order and the revisional order are liable to be quashed.;