Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the landlord for quashing the order dated 15th May 1986, declaring vacancy in the premises in dispute and inviting application for release/allotment. Dispute relates to house No. D -52/43, situated in Mohallah Lakshmi Kund, Varanasi City, Varanasi. Proceedings for allotment were initiated on an application filed by Madan Mohan Shukla, seeking allotment of the premises in dispute on the ground that one Jitendra Nath Gupta, tenant of the said premises has colluded with landlord. Report was called for from the Inspector, who submitted a report that there was vacancy. The petitioner landlord filed an objection stating that the premises in dispute has never been rented. Ever since it was constructed, the petitioner is residing in the same. The objections and affidavit have been filed as Annexures -2 and 3 to the writ petition. It was also denied that Jitendra Nath Gupta was ever the tenant or the occupant of the premises in dispute. It was further stated that the application was got filed mala fide by one Jitendra Nath Gupta as he had been wanting one room on the ground floor, which had been denied by the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 15.5.1986 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared vacancy and fixed 22.5.1986 for consideration of the release and allotment of premises. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri S.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petition has been heard in the revised list. No one has appeared for the respondent, even though names of learned Counsel for the respondent is printed in the cause list.
(3.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that firstly, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer failed to consider the question as to whether the premises, which had never been let out, was open for declaration of vacancy and allotment. The second contention is that the objection and affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was not considered and Rent Control and Eviction Officer proceeded to pass cryptic order without application of mind, and lastly that the inspection was made in absence of the petitioner landlord by the Rent Control Inspector without giving notices as required under Rule 8(2) of the 1972 Rules framed under the Act.;