Tarun Agarwala - (1.) -The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer intimating him that the tenant of the disputed premises in question was going to vacate the shop in question and therefore, the said shop may be allotted to them. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the inspector to submit a report, who found that the shop was likely to fall vacant. Accordingly, the tenancy of the shop was notified. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued a notice to Shyam Sunder Sharma, who is alleged to have given his consent and on that basis the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued an allotment order dated 14.9.1983 in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) THE petitioner is a temple and is managed by its trustees. THE petitioner is the owner and the landlord of the premises in dispute. When the petitioner came to know about this allotment order, an application was filed under Section 16 (5) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the petitioner for reviewing the allotment order. In the said application, the petitioner contended that Shyam Sunder Sharma was not the landlord and had no right or authority to give the consent for allotment. Further, no notice as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Rules was served upon the petitioner. It was stated that Shyam Sunder Sharma was only authorised to collect the rent on behalf of the trust and was not authorised to give the consent on behalf of the landlord. THE petitioner, therefore, prayed that the allotment order was obtained by misrepresentation and a fraud was played upon the petitioner and therefore, the allotment order should be cancelled. THE petitioner also moved a release application praying that the premises may be released, in its favour as it was required for establishing a library and a reading room. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by order dated 12.9.1984 allowed the review application and cancelled the allotment order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer found on the basis of an affidavit given by Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma, that he gave his consent on the misrepresentation made by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the effect that other trustees had also given their consent and therefore, he had also given his consent. On this basis the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that Shyam Sunder Sharma was not the landlord and his consent was based on misrepresentation and fraud. The authority further found that Shyam Sunder Sharma was only authorised to collect the rent and was not authorised for any other act on behalf of the landlord and that the Managing Committee of the temple was only empowered to take a decision. Aggrieved by the order cancelling the allotment order, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed a revision under Section 18 of the Act. The said revision was allowed and the order dated 12.9.1984 was set aside and the allotment order dated 14.9.1983 was restored. The revisional court held that Shyam Sunder Sharma is the landlord in view of the definition contemplated under Section 3 (j) of the Act and that the notice was duly served upon the landlord and that his consent was sufficient for the allotment of the premises in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The revisional court further found that the allegations of misrepresentation and fraud did not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) THE landlord-petitioner has now preferred the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revisional court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact. Section 18 of the Act cannot be invoked even if an erroneous and wrong finding has been given by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.;