Narendra Kishore Mehrotra, J. - (1.) SINCE in both these writ petitions, the same judgment and order has been challenged therefore, these writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment. Writ Petition No. 38 (R/C) of 2004 This is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 4.3.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Lucknow, the opposite party No. 5 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition and for a direction for upholding the validity of the order of vacancy dated 19.11.2003 and the order of release dated 15.12.2003 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(2.) THE premises in question is situated at 25/31 Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow. Admittedly, opposite party No. 1 Ashok Bhasin, is the tenant on the basis of the allotment order dated 3.11.1992. Earlier to the allotment in favour of the opposite party No. 1 Ashok Bhasin, P.N. Chopra was the tenant in this premises and G.K. Singh was the landlord. Shri P.N. Chopra vacated the premises on 17.9.1990 and Shri G.K. Singh, the erstwhile landlord intimated about the likelihood of vacancy in the shop in question to the Rent Control Authority. During the period from 17.9.1990 to 3.11.1992 (the date of allotment in favour of opposite party No. 1 Ashok Bhasin). There was no lawful tenant in the disputed premises. Although, the case of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 before this Court is that the premises was occupied by two partnership firms namely; M/s. Bhasin Collection and M/s. Bhasin Fashion and the rent was being accepted by the erstwhile landlord Shri G.K. Singh and subsequently by the successor in title namely, the petitioners. The petitioners purchased this disputed premises by the two registered sale -deeds dated 18.12.2001 and 174.2002. The fact of being partners in M/s. Bhasin Collection and M/s. Bhasin Fashion is not denied by the petitioners. After purchase of the premises in question, the petitioners dissolved the partnership and according to the petitioners, they were not knowing the fact that the disputed premises was not allotted by Ashok Bhasin, one of the partners in both the aforesaid firms on 3.11.1992 and they came to know about this fact in July, 2002. Whatever be the case neither of the parties has denied this fact that after the enforcement of the Act if, any person occupies a building or portion thereof otherwise than under an order of allotment or release under section 16 of the Act that person shall be deemed to be an authorised occupant of such building. There is a provision under section 13 of the Act that where a landlord or tenant ceases to occupy a building or part thereof, no person shall occupy it in any capacity on his behalf or otherwise than under an order of allotment or release under section 16 and if, a person so purports to occupy it, he shall, without prejudice to the provisions of section 31, be deemed to be an unauthorised occupant of such building or part. So before proceeding further at the very beginning, I prefer to mention this admitted fact that the erstwhile tenant Shri P.N. Chopra vacated the premises on 17.9.1990 and the premises in question was allotted in favour of Ashok Bhasin, the opposite party No. 1 on 3.11.1992. Therefore, during this period between 17.9.1990 to 3.11.1992 whosoever was in occupation in the shop in question was unauthorised occupant in view of the provisions under section 13 of the Act. The instant proceedings started when Shri Prem Chandra Gupta applied for allotment on 16.10.2002 under section 16(1)(a) read with section 12(2) of the Act claiming the need for opening a Chamber after declaration of the deemed vacancy in shop in question on account of admission of non -family members as partners by the sitting tenant Ashok Bhasin, the opposite party No. 1. The allotment application moved by Shri Prem Chandra Gupta was registered as Rent Case No. 105 of 2003. On 20.3.2003, the petitioners who have become the owners and landlords by purchase of the disputed premises filed their objections and also preferred the release -application under section 16(1)(b) of the Act claiming therein a creation of the deemed vacancy due to admission of non -family members as partners by an allottee Ashok Bhasin, the opposite party No. 1 by executing two partnership deeds of 1995 and 2001 after the commencement of his tenancy. Since both the petitioners were owners and landlords of half and half portion of the premises, they moved separate application for release and those release -applications were registered as Rent Case Nos. 113/2003 and 114/2003. All these three cases were consolidated and heard together by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the deemed vacancy under section 12(2) on 19.11.2003. The opposite parties, Ashok Bhasin and other filed Writ Petition No. 196 (R/C) of 2003 before this Court. The earlier writ petition came up for hearing on 15.12.2003. On the same day, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had passed the release order in favour of the petitioners. These two release orders were challenged by the opposite parties by filing two Rent Revisions under section 18 of the Act before the District Judge. On 29.1.2004, this Court disposed of earlier writ petition finally by incorporating in the order that since the revisions against the release -orders and the order of vacancy were already filed and that being composite revisions, the parties had ample opportunity to place their respective submission both with respect to the order of vacancy and the release before the Revisional Court under section 18 of the Act.
(3.) TWO rent revisions bearing Nos. 1/2004 and 2/2004 have been disposed of by the impugned judgment and order dated 4.3.2004. The Revisional Court had set aside the order of vacancy -dated 19.11.2003 and the orders of release dated 15.12.2003 and the matter has been remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for hearing the matter afresh. The Revisional Court has remanded the matter on the ground that the opportunity of hearing was not provided to the opposite parties mainly the allottee Ashok Bhasin and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not considered the material available on the record and later, in revision thereto as placed before him by the parties. It is this judgment, by which the matter has been remanded after setting aside the order of deemed vacancy and release in favour of the petitioners, which has been challenged in this writ petition by the landlord and the petitioners.;