M.KATJU, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition had been filed against the impugned order dated 6.4.1995 (Annexure 8 to the petition). I have heard Shri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and find no merit in this petition.
(2.) THE dispute relates to De-Raj Hotel, Nainital, which belongs to respondent No. 2. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order dated 27.3.1982 declaring vacancy, true copy of which is Annexure 3 and thereafter on 13.1.1983 the accommodation was allotted to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 2 filed a revision before the District Judge, Nainital who by the impugned order dated 6.4.1995 allowed the revision. Aggrieved, this petition has been filed in this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither the owner nor the tenant of the premises in dispute. The said premises is a hotel/lodge, and thus, the petitioner is at best is a licencee and he has no right to continue to live in the premises in dispute. The Revisional Court has held that the said lodge was registered under the relevant Act. It has also been held by the Court below that before allotment the premises has never been let out to any one and instead it has always been used as a lodging house. It has also been found by the Court below that no notice was given to the owner before passing the allotment order asking him whether he wants to let it out or not and, thus, Rule 10 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules had been violated. It has also been held by the Court below that Rule 8(2) of the Rules has been violated because the inspection was not done in the presence of two respectable persons of the locality and the inspection report was not put up on the notice board. Thus, it is evident that Rule 8 has been violated.
(3.) THERE is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.;