Sudhir Narayan - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 18th August 1993, passed by respondent no. 1, releasing the disputed premises in favour of landlord-respondents 3 and 4 and the order of respondent no. 1 dated 18th August, 1993, rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner against the allotment order in favour of respondent no. 5.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that respondents 3 and 4 are owners and landlords of house no. 450, Begam Bagh, Meerut. THE disputed premises consisting of ground floor and first floor was under the tenancy of one Aman Singh Attray, Advocate, Meerut. Sri Attray had already constructed his own bouse in Saket Meerut. After the construction of the house by him proceedings under section 12 U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) started. Various persons filed allotment applications including Mahendra Singh Tyagi, Advocate, P. N. Sharma and the petitioner. On 16th July 1973 the Rent Central and Eviction Officer declared the house as vacant. On 30th August 1974 he allotted the disputed premises in favour of Sri P. N. Sharma. He, however, after allotment could obtain possession only of first floor of the premises. Sri Mahendra Singh Tyagi filed revision against the said order before the District Judge and his revision was dismissed on 25th July 1976. He filed writ petition No. 1568 of 1976 against the allotment order dated 30th August 1974 and the order passed in revision., During the pendency of writ petition further development took place. As Sri P. N. Sharma obtained possession of only first floor of the disputed premises and could not secure possession of ground floor which was also allotted to him, separate application were again filed for allotted of the ground floor. On 12-4-1978 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that ground floor should be again declared as vacant as there was actual vacancy. The landlord respondents 3 and 4 filed application for release of the said accommodation. The petitioner filed application for allotment. On 20th May 1978 the release application filed by the landlords was rejected and on the same day he passed allotment order in favour of the petitioner and immediately after the allotment order was passed he secured possesion of the ground floor of the disputed premises on the same day. Landlords filed two revisions, one against the order rejecting their release application and another against the allotment order. Sri P. N. Sharma also filed a revision against the order dated 12th April 1976 declaring ground floor portion of the premises in dispute again as vacant when the same had already been allotted in his favour on 30-8-1974 after holding that it as vacant. On 17-11-1978 this Court allowed the writ petition and the allotment order passed in favour of Sri P. N. Sharma on 30th August 1974 and quashed. The Rent Central and Eviction Office was directed to consider the question of allotment afresh in accordance with law. After the decision of the High Court in the writ petition the revision filed by the landlords against the order dated 20th May 1973, rejecting their application for release and the order of allotment passed in favour of the petitioner and the revision of Sri P. N. Sharma filed against the order of the declaration of vacancy came up for consideration before the IVth Additional District Judge, Meerut. The revision filed by the landlords was dismissed tut the revision filed by Sri P. N. Sharma was allowed. The allotment order dated 20th May 1978 was set aside. The revisional Court took the view that the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 12th April 1978 declaring the ground floor portion of the disputed premises as vacant was erroneous as the premises had already been allotted in favour of Sri P. N. Sharma and the house had already been declared as vacant on 16th July 1973. The entire proceedings for release or allotment were vitiated. It was, however, made clear that the landlords can apply afresh for release of the house in their favour. The allotment order made in favour of Sri P. N. Sharma had already been set aside by the High Court but in case the judgment of the High Court is set aside in appeal filed by Sri P. N. Sharma, he shall continue to be a tenant of the premises in question. The Special Leave Petition filed by Sri P. N. Sharma in the Supreme Court was dismissed on 6th August 1979.
(3.) RESPONDENTS 3 and 4 filed release application afresh before the Rent Control and Eviction officer on the ground that wife of respondent no 3 requires the disputed premises for establishing a Nursery School. The petitioner filed objection against the said application One Sarju Prasad Tyagi who was Member of Legislative Council, filed application allotment of the disputed accommodation. Oil 6-10-1981, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application filed by respondents 3 and 4 for release of the disputed accommodation and on the same day he passed an order of allotment in favour of Sri Sarju Prasad Tyagi. The landlords filed revision against the order rejecting their application for release and the petitioner filed revision against the order allotting the disputed premises in favour of Sri Sarju Prasad Tyagi. Respondeat no. 1 allowed the revision of the landlords by order dated 12th August 1983 and released the disputed accommodation in their favour. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner has challenged these orders in this writ petition. I have heard Sri K. R. Sirohi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sushii Harkauli, learned counsel for the respondents at length.;