S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Respondent No. 3 applicant for allotment was represented by Shri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel (as His Lordship then was). On his elevation to the Bench of Uttaranchal High Court notice was issued to respondent No. 3 to engage another Counsel which returned with the endorsement of the Postman to the effect that not known. In the address of respondent No. 3 in the writ petition building number is not mentioned. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that on the records no other address of respondent No. 3 is available.
(2.) Proceedings for allotment of the accommodation in dispute which is a shop bearing No. 23, Charahi Neem Bara Bazar, Bareilly were initiated on the application of respondent No. 3 R.C. and E.O. on 16th June, 1972 declared the vacancy under Section 7 of old U.P. Rent Control Act (U.P. Act No. 3 ot 1947) and directed that to be notified. Respondent No. 4 is the landlord of the shop in dispute. R.C.I. reported that the shop in dispute was allotted in favour of Raj Kumar in the year 1959 but for the last few years petitioner and one Puttan Tailor were occupying the shop in dispute without any allotment order. Petitioner filed objections and stated that he had entered into partnership with the allottee tenant Raj Kumar. Most important thing is that respondent No. 4 landlord Ram Avtar supported the case of the petitioner and stated that after allotment of the shop in favour of Raj Kumar petitioner entered into partnership with Raj Kumar and both Raj Kumar as well as petitioner executed rent deed in favour of the landlord.
(3.) Against order dated 16th June, 1972 revision was filed which was dismissed by A.D.J., Bareilly on 6th December, 1973. Writ Petition filed against the said order being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1548 of 1973 was also dismissed on 3rd August, 1978 on the ground that no revision against vacancy declaration order was maintainable. Meanwhile R.C. and E.O. had allotted the shop in dispute to respondent No. 3 on 7th July, 1972. Thereafter application under Section 16(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, for recall of the said order was filed by the petitioner (in the name of Shri Raj Kumar and Jaggan Lal, which was registered on the file of R.C. and E.O., Bareilly as Case No. 133 of 1978 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 the said application was rejected by the R.C. and E.O. on 22nd September, 1979 against which R.C. Revision No. 199 of 1979 was filed by the petitioner. The revision was dismissed by Vth A.D.J., Bareilly on 29th March, 1985 hence this writ petition.;