- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared for the respondent even though the case has been taken in the revised list.
(2.) SHOP in dispute was given on rent by previous landlady Smt. Shanti Devi to the petitioner either in December, 1977 or May, 1978. Thereafter respondents No. 3 to 5 purchased the property from Smt. Shanti Devi. Respondent No. 6 filed application for allotment stating therein that as after July, 1976 shop in dispute had been let out without allotment order hence it was legally/deemed vacant. Vacancy was declared on 29-6-1981. Thereafter petitioner also filed an application for allotment. R. C. and E. O. /a. D. M. Supplies), Meerut by order dated 7-12-1981 passed in Case No. 253 of 1980, Gulshan Kumar v. Smt. Shanti Devi, allotted the shop in dispute to respondent No. 6. The case of the petitioner for allotment was not considered on the ground that he was unauthorized occupant. The order of the R. C and E. O. was challenged by the petitioner in revision No. 414 of 1981 which was dismissed by VIII Additional District Judge, Meerut on 1-5-1989 hence this writ petition. Revisional Court also agreed with the Trial Court that the initial tenancy of petitioner being illegal he could not be considered for allotment. Revisional Court in para 11 of its judgment also observed that it was argued by learned Counsel for the revisionist that allottee Rakesh Kumar had joined the service in Allahabad Bank, Meerut University Branch hence he had no need of the disputed shop, however, even if it was taken to be true, it could not be said to be ground for interference with the order of the Court below. In my opinion if allottee before obtaining possession of the allotted shop joins a service, it frustrates the allotment order totally. In para 18 of the writ petition it was stated that respondent No. 6 was in service. No reply has been given to the said assertion, in para 17 of counter-affidavit which proves that it is correct. The Supreme Court in R. K. Parasher v. Dinesh Kumar, has held that a tenant even if inducted by the landlord after July, 1976 without allotment order can be allotted the same tenanted accommodation.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside. Allotment application filed by the respondent No. 6 is rejected. Allotment application filed by the petitioner is allowed. The shop shall be deemed to have been allotted to the petitioner. However, as the shop is situate in Meerut hence in my opinion rent of Rs. 125 per month is highly inadequate. I have held in Khurshida v. XVIII A. D. J. , Allahabad, 2004 (2) JCLR 452 (All), that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant under Rent Regulation Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Accordingly it is directed that w. e. f. May, 2005 onwards petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord respondents 3 to 5 at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. Petition allowed. .;