- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21-3-1994, passed by respondent No. 1 setting aside the allotment order.
(2.) THE property in dispute is property of Batala Housing Trust, Hanumangarhi Kankhal, Haridwar. On 6-8- 1934 Munshi Ram, Sukh Dayal and Khushal Mal executed a trust deed whereby they gave their property in trust for public benefit, THEy appointed themselves as founder trustees and further appointed (i) Bharat Ram, (ii) Ramji Das, (iii) Bhagat Ram, (iv) Lal Hari Chand and (v)j Lala Maulak Ram as trustees. THE founder trustees had a right to appoint and remove the trustees. Subsequently, Munshi Ram and Sukh Dayal, founder trustees, and some other trustees, expired. Khushal Chand (founder trustee) and Bharat Ram executed a trust deed on 24-9-1946, by which eight persons including Harideo were appointed as trustees. Bharat Ram was heir of Munshi Ram, founder trustee, and was nominated as one of the trustees by 1934 deed. In the meantime seven trustees appointed by the deed dated 24-9-1946, died and thereafter the last surviving trustee Hari Deo executed a deed dated 23-6-1986, whereby he appointed three other persons namely, Mahendra Sen Sarin, Sudarshan Kumar Sarin and Satish Chandra Sarin, sons of late Bhagat Ram (who was one of the seven trustees) as trustees. Sri Mahendra Sen Sarin was appointed as Chairman of the Board of Trustee. THE property in question was recorded in the name of trust through Chairman in the municipal record. Sri Raghubir Singh was appointed as Manager to look after the trust property as well as to serve the pilgrims staying in the trust building. After Hari Deo executed the deed, dated 23-8-1986, it is alleged that he was given a notice on 25-2-1987 by Mahendra Sen Sarin, respondent No. 2, removing him from the post of Manager. On 1-7-1988, the petitioner applied for allotment of the trust property consisting of three rooms, latrine and bath on the ground floor of Batala Ashram situate at Kankhal. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer called for a report. The Rent Control Inspector submitted a report on 8th July, 1988, stating that on the spot he met Rabhubir Singh, respondent No. 4, who claimed himself as a Manager. The accommodation was found locked, Raghubir Singh told the Rent Control Inspector that he was in possession but he was unable to open the lock. He informed that the key had been taken away by his son. He further intimated that the disputed accommodation was never let out to any one at any time and it is going to be let out for the first time. A true copy of the report is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Raghubir Singh submitted nomination in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of allotment of the disputed accommodation. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer gave a notice of the allotment proceedings, as well under Rule 9 to Raghubir Singh. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the accommodation by his order, dated 29th July, 1988 to the petitioner who is alleged to have taken the possession on the next day by breaking open locks. Mahendra Sen Sarin, respondent No. 2 filed revision against the allotment order before the District Judge. Respondent No. 1 has allowed the revision, vide order, dated 21st March, 1994. The petitioner has challenged this order in this writ petition.
(3.) IT is not disputed that the premises in question was never allotted at any time to any one. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer could not have allotted an accommodation which was never in the tenancy of any parson except there was a valid nomination as provided under Rule 10 (9) of the Rules which reads as under: "in the case of a building which was never let out before, the District Magistrate shall serve on the landlord a notice asking him within a month of service thereof whether he is willing to throw the building open for letting and if so, to nominate a person in whose favour the allotment may be made, and thereupon ; (a) if the landlord intimates the District Magistrate within said period that he does not want to let out the building, it shall not be allotted; (b) if he intimates the District Magistrate within the said period his consent to letting and nominate a person in that behalf, the allotment shall be made in favour of that nominee ; (c) if the landlord fails to send any such intimation within the said time, it shall be open to the District Magistrate to allot the building to any person. This provisions makes itself clear that in case the building had never been let out it could have never been allotted by the District Magistrate if the landlord intimates that the accommodation be not allotted. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon nomination given by Raghubir Singh claiming a Manager of Batala Ashram Trust in favour of the petitioner. It is urged that as a manager he had right to nominate in favour of any person and has placed reliance upon the definition of landlord as given in Section 3 (j) of the Act which defines the landlord in relation to building, a person to whom its rent is or if the building were let, would be, payable and includes, except in clause (g), the agent or attorney, or such person.;