M. Katju, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice dated 12 -1 - 1995 (Annexure 1 to the petition) and the orders dated 9 -11 -1994 (Annexure 5), 13 -11 -1994 (Annexure 7) and 1 -2 -1994 (Annexure 9 to the petition) and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the possession of the disputed house to the petitioners.
(2.) I have heard Shri Ravi Kant and Sri S. K. Garg learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3, and the learned standing counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, and have perused the writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavit. The allegations in the petition are that late Sukmar Chatterjee was the owner of premises No. 18 Rajpur Road, Dehradun which is the property in dispute. He died on 4 -12 -1994 (wrongly mentioned as 40 years ago) leaving behind him the petitioners and some other relations of his heirs and legal representatives. Petitioner No. 1 Sunil Chatterjee is working in Star Paper Mills, Saharanpur and petitioner No. 2 is working and residing in Delhi. Sukumar Chatterjee was residing in the house in dispute and looking after it till his death on 4 -7 -1994 Tausif Ahmad, respondent No. 3 moved an application for allotment of the portion of the house in dispute consisting of four rooms, latrine, kitchen and bath room on the ground floor. According to the allotment application this portion was pre viously occupied by one Shri Anna who vacated the aforesaid house and the premises then became vacant. A true copy of the allotment application is Annexure 1 to the petition. It is stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that at no point of time the ground floor was ever let out to any person and it was never occupied by so -called Sri Anna and hence there was no question of vacating the premises in dispute by the so -called Sri Anna. In paragraph 7 it is stated that the premises in dispute was physically occupied by late Sri Sukumar Chatterjee till his death. In the allotment application only Sukumar Chatterjee is alleged to be the landlord of the house in question. The peti tioners and other heirs and legal representatives were never shown to be the landlords of the house in dispute. In para 9 it is stated that on the aforesaid allotment application the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued notice on 6 -7 -1994 to late Sukumar Chatterjee, the alleged outgoing tenant so -called Sri Anna and the prospective allottee. The notice meant for service on late Sri Sukumar Chatterjee was returned back as unserved. A true copy of the notice dated 6 -7 -1994 alongwith the endorsement made by the process -server is Aunexure 2 to the petition. In paragraph 1 of the petition it is stated that from the report of the process -sever it was clear that the notice meant for late Sukumar Chatterjee was never served on him and the entire proceedings were ex parte. This was done deliberately so that the petitioners may not acquire knowledge of the proceedings and may not be able to raise any objection to the allotment in favour of the respondent No. 3. In para 11 it is alleged that Tausif Ahmad, respondent No. 3 is a local tough and is a habitual house grabber. He is an active member of ruling Samajwadi Party. The entire pro ceedings were mala fide with an intention to grab the property in dispute which is a very valuable property. In para 12 it is alleged that on 13 -7 -1994 the Rent Control Inspector came for inspection of the house in dispute but he did not make any inquiry from the local residents. Inspection was not made in the presence of two local persons as required by Rule 8 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. In paragraph 13 it is alleged that the report submitted by the aforesaid Inspector is a fraudulent document. It does not cite any source in his report to the effect that the so -called Sri Anna had vacated the house or he handed over posses sion to late Sukumar Chatterjee. In paragraph 14 it is alleged that the report of the Rent Control Inspector does not state the correct tacts and in fact, it is a procured report. A true copy of the report dated 13 -7 -1994 is Annexure 3 to the petition. In paragraph 13 of the petition it is alleged that the entire proceed ings for declaration of vacancy as well as allotment in favour of respondent No. 3 was an open and flagrant violation of mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. It is further alleged that the conclusion of the inspection report was never pasted on the notice board in the office of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for information of the general public and this was done deliberately. In paragraph 16 it is alleged that the proceedings could net be expedited due to continued agitation of the lawyers and the movement for Uttarkhand. In paragraph 17 it is stated that a perusal of the order sheet shows that the conclusion of the inspection report was never pasted on the notice board of the office of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The said order -sheet further reveals that except the respondent No. 3 there was no applicant for allotment of the disputed house. In paragraph 18 it is stated that while it was pleaded that no notice was ever served on late Sukumar Chatttrjee yet for the reasons best known to respondent No. 1, he held the service of notice on late Sukumar Chatterjee as sufficient. A true copy of the order -sheet is Annexure 4 to the petition, in paragraph 19 it is alleged that on 9 -11 -1994 on the basis of the aforesaid material the respondent No. 1 declared the house vacant. A true copy oi the order dated 9 -11 -1994 is Annexure 5 to the petition.
(3.) IN paragraph 20 it is alleged that after such declaration of vacancy notice was issued to late Sukumar Chatterjee. It is alleged that by this time process server became more intelligent and he submitted a report dated 11 -11 -1994 vide Annexure 6. According to this report at the lime of inspection the house in dispute was locked and the process -server could not meet either late Sukumar Chatterjee or any member of his family and his whereabouts was not ascertainable hence he pasted the notice on the outer door of the house in dispute. IN paragraph 22 it is alleged that the aforesaid report is a got up document. Sukumar Chatterjee was physically occupying his house till his death on 4 -12 -1994 (wrongly mentioned on 8 -12 -1994 ). He was old and aged man and there was no question of non -availability at the time of service of notice. The report of the Process Server was therefore, clearly a fabricated and manufactured document. IN paragraph No. 23 it is alleged that the respondent No. 3 is a very influential person and is a prominent anti -social element of the town. The entire administration is dancing to his tune and act ing as his service agents. IN paragraph 24 it is alleged that on 13 -11 -1994 the respondent No. 1 allotted the disputed premises to respondent No. 3 vide Annexure 7 to the petition. IN paragraph 25 it is alleged that although the order of allotment was passed on 13 -11 -1994 attempt were made to forcibly dispossess late Sukumar Chatterjee from the house in dispute on the same day itself. However, the same could not be possible and hence on the next day i. e. 4 -11 -1994 the respondent No. 3 applied that possession be delivered to him through police force. A true copy of the letter dated 1 -12 -1994 is Annexure 8 to the petition. IN paragraph 26 it is stated that the facts stated by Tausif Ahmad, respondent No. 3 in the aforesaid application are absolutely false and baseless. He never approached late Sukumar Chatterjee for delivery of possession and Sukumar Chatterjee during his life -time remained unaware of the allotment proceedings. IN paragraph 27 it is stated that the respondent No. 1 within a minute of moving of the aforesaid application dated 1 -12 -1994 passed an order directing late Sukumar Chatterjee to deliver possession of the house in dispute. A true copy of the order dated 1 -12 1994 is Annexure 9. IN paragraph 28 it is stated that again the Process Server put up a stereo typed report without even visiting the house in dispute, and in fact his report was written sitting in his office. A true copy of the report dated 1 -12 -1994 is Annexure 10 to the petition. In paragraph 29 it is alleged that on 12 -1 -1995 when the office re -opened at Dehradun after the Uttarakhand agitation was suspended respon dent No. 1 issued notice in form 'd' for eviction of Sukumar Chatterjee. A true copy of the notice is Annexure 10. In paragraph 30 it is stated that the entire administration of District Dehradun lay prostrate before the respondent No. 3. For taking possession from an old and feeble man, the district adminis tration employed not only civil police and P. A. C. but also paramilitary force. In paragraph 31 it is stated that Sukumar Chatterjee died on 4 -12 -1994. On record the possession has been shown to be delivered by a dead man to the allottee. It is stated that there was no regard for legal proceedings and the authorities were out to forge, manipulate and fabricate the official record, In para 33 it is stated that the petitioner filed a revision against the order dated 12 -1 -1994 but the same has not yet been decided. On the other hand, respon dent No. 3 has grabbed the property, is cutting away some trees in the disput ed premises and is forcibly trying to occupy the other rooms which are in the occupation of the petitioner. The petitioners who were employed outside have been making repeated request to the District Magistrate to intervene but to no avail.;