S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) SRI Siddharth, learned Counsel who has got the briefs of learned Counsel Sri D.P. Singh as his lordship then was states that after elevation of his lordship he has written several letters to respondent No. 3 but he is not responding. Sri D.P. Singh, learned Counsel as his lordship then was had filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. This is landlords writ petition arising out of allotment proceedings. Initially in respect of building in dispute allotment application was dismissed on 21.5.1980 on the ground that building in dispute had fallen down and it was no more roofed structure. Copy of the order is Annexure -2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, it was allotted to respondent No. 3 Mahendra Pratap Singh by R.C. and E.O., Lalitpur on 3.5.1985. Order was passed in Case No. 6 of 1985 Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Kastoor Chand and others. Notices were sent by R.C. and E.O. before declaring vacancy to Kastoor Chand, the previous landlord who had died when notice was issued. The process server reported that his heirs refused to accept the notice, hence it was affixed on the door of the house. According to the impugned order thereafter notice was issued through, registered post which returned without service. The impugned order dated 3.5.1985 was liable to be set aside only on the ground that no notice was served upon the landlords i.e. the petitioner and proforma respondents who are legal representative of deceased landlord Kastoor Chand. Against order dated 33.1985 petitioners filed revision under section 18 U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as Rent Control Revision No. 2 of 1985. Additional District Judge, Lalitpur dismissed the revision on 30.9.1985, hence this writ petition.
(2.) REVISIONAL Court also found that inspection was made without notice to the landlord. Revisional Court held that this was not sufficient to set aside the vacancy declaration order and allotment order. By virtue of Rule 8(2) it is mandatory that inspection shall be made after notice to the landlord. If inspection is made without notice to the landlord then entire proceedings are illegal. Even otherwise in the allotment order no rent has been fixed. There cannot be any tenancy without fixation of rent. I have discussed all these aspects in detail in C.K. Nagarkar v. A.D.J., 2004 (56) ALR 651 Heirs of deceased landlord are not duty bound to accept the notice which is sent addressed to deceased landlord. In such situation order is liable to be set aside vide G.S. Barrow v. D.M. : 1989 (15) ALR 92 (Sum.) : 1989 (2) ARC 1 (SC).
(3.) IN my opinion both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to pay rent since the date of allotment till his eviction to the landlord at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ - per month. Landlords are entitled to take possession under section 18(3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by filing an application before R.C. and E.O. If such an application is filed, possession shall be delivered to the landlord within a month from the date of filing of the application. Any leniency on the part of the R.C. and E.O. in this regard will not be appreciated by this Court.;