VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the landlady for quashing the judgment and order dated 30 -8 -1982 and 12 -7 -1972, passed by respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively, whereby the ground floor portion has been allotted in favour of respondent No. 3 and the appeal against the same has been dismissed.
(2.) THE dispute relates to part of house No. 87/88, Kishanpuri, Meerut of which the petitioner is the landlady. It is a double storey building. The petitioner is residing with other family members on the first floor of the building and using it for residential purpose. On the ground floor initially there was a school run by the Municipal Board, Meerut. The Municipal Board vacated the premises in the year 1972 and, thereafter, by order dated 12 -7 -1972 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the premises of the ground floor portion in favour of respondent No. 3. According to the petitioner, the order of allotment dated 12 -7 -1972 was ex parte, however, when the petitioner landlady learnt about the same, she filed an appeal on 27 -7 -1972 under Section 43(2)(k)(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellate Court remanded the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to record a finding as to whether the accommodation allotted to the opposite party No. 3 was a portion of the accommodation occupied by the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 gave opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and, thereafter, vide order dated 29 -8 -1973 held that the accommodation allotted to opposite party No. 3 does not form portion of any accommodation occupied by the petitioner. The petitioner not being satisfied with the finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, filed objections before the appellate Court and also filed an application that local inspection be issued, in as much as the earlier inspection was made in her absence and without notice to her. The Appellate Court disagreeing with the objection and the application filed by the petitioner, vide judgment dated 27 -4 -1974 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6184 of 1974 before this Court, the said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 6 -9 -1977 and the matter was remanded to the appellate Court for reconsideration of the matter in the light of the observations/directions contained in the remand order. This Court while remanding the matter in particular directed the appellate Court to consider: (i) The effect of their being a common main door for both the parties; (ii) To consider the effect of gallery on the ground floor being commonly used by members of the family of the landlady and the tenant, for parking cycles etc. (iii) The effect of their being no latrine on the ground floor and the occupant of the ground floor would go to the first floor through the stair case, (iv) The affidavit filed by the petitioner had not been taken into consideration by the appellate Court. This Court while, remanding the matter also left it open to the learned District Judge (Appellate Court) to appoint any local commissioner for the purpose.
(3.) THE petitioner filed copy of the judgment of this Court and also filed an application for appointment of local commissioner to submit report with regard to the specific points raised by her as was also observed in the judgment of this Court dated 6 -9 -1977.;