A.N.Dikshita, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 6 -9 -1980 passed by Respondent No. 1 allowing the revision.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that consequent upon the tenant vacating a portion of house No. 7/955 Mohalla Chauntala, Saharanpur, the Petitioner filed an application for its allotment. A report was called for on such an application for allotment by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur, which was submitted on 3 -7 -1976. An objection against the said report was filed by the landlady Smt. Indrawati since deceased. A vacancy was declared on 23 -3 -1977 and was notified on the notice board of the office for information of the general public on 2 -3 -1977 Smt. Indrawati made an application on 1 -4 -1977 for the release of the disputed portion in her favour on the ground of her personal need. The application for release was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer whereupon the landlady Smt Indrawati filed a revision before the District Judge, Saluranpur. Such a revision was also dismissed though a review application was again filed before the District Judge. During the pendency of the review application Smt. Indrawati died. Another application as per the directions of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, baharanpur, was filed by the Petitioner who in compliance thereof filed an application on 22 -8 -1979. Again a report was called for by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur, from the Inspector. On the receipt of the report dated 29 -8 -1979, the vacancy was again notified. Objections were filed by Smt. Padmawati, Respondent No. 2 which, however, were rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur. The portion in question was then allotted to the Petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Saharanpur, Smt. Padmawati, Respondent No. 2 filed a revision before the District Judge, Saharanpur, which was allowed vide order dated 6 -9 -1980 and the case was remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The District Judge, Saharanpur, Respondent No. 1, found that the allotment order made in favour of the Petitioner was vitiated for non -compliance of Rule 9(3) and Rule 10(5) of the Rules made under U.P. Act XIII of 1972.
(3.) PARTIES have been heard at some length. The only contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Respondent No. 1 has wrongly applied the provisions of Rules 9(3) and 10(5) and the allotment order which was rightly made in his favour could not be deemed to have been vitiated on account of non -compliance of the said rules. I find no merit in this submission. It would be expedient to extract the provisions of Rules 9(3) and 10(5) of the Rules framed under U.P. Act XIII of 1972 for a fair determination of the controversy which are reproduced before: 9(3). Immediately after the receipt of intimation of vacancy of any building in the office of the District Magistrate, the vacancy shall be entered in a register which shall be maintained in that behalf and be notified for the information of general public by pasting a copy of the list of the vacant buildings on the notice board of that office, specifying therein the date on which the question of allotment will be considered. He shall also issue a notice to the landlord intimating him the date so fixed. On the date so fixed the District Magistrate shall consider the cases of all applicants registered in the register mentioned in Rule 10 and shall pass an order under Section 16 in accordance with Rules 10 and 16. 10(5). A building shall not ordinarily be allotted to the following persons or for the following purposes - (a) A tenant against whom a decree or order has been passed for ejectment on any ground mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of Sub -section (1) of Section 3 or under Section 7 -8 of the old Act or on any ground mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of Sub -section (2) of Section 20 during a period of two years from the date of such decree or order or any member of his family or any person of whose family he is a member; (b) For residential accommodation of employees of business concerns who are allowed by their employers full re -imbursement of house rent paid by them ; (c) For residential accommodation of a person already occupying a building governed by the Act or any public premises other than any premises granted to him free of rent in connection with the discharge of any duties of public nature and situated any where in the State or any member of the family of such person or any person of whose family he is a member, except where such person will vacate the other building or public premises at the time of allotment; (d) For accommodating a person who has entered into unauthorised occupation of the building or any part thereof without the written consent to the landlord.;