- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the allotment proceedings in favour of respondent No. 6 and the order dated 12-12-1994 allotting the premises in favour of respondent No. 6 and for a mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to evict the respondent No. 6 from the disputed portion of the building in question and to restore possession of the same to the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard Shri R. C. Srivastava, Senior Counsel and Shri Ashok Bhushan for the petitioner and Shri Murlidhar Senior Counsel and Shri Subodh Kumar for the respondent No. 6. This is another case in the series of cases of illegal house grabbing which have come up before this Court recently. The modus operandi adopted in this case for illegally grabbing the house in question is almost the same which is being adopted innumarous cases which have come up before this Court and about which there is wide publicity in the press. The modus operandi is to get 4 surreptitious allotment order obtained behind the back of the landlord/occupant and thereafter quickly grabbing the house alongwith a mob of hooligans and anti-social elements. The respondent No. 6 who has illegally grabbed the house is an M. L. A. belonging to the Ruling Samajwadi Party from Bareilly and it is evident from the facts of this case that he used his political connection and has illegally obtained allotment order and possession of the house by putting political pressure on the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the local administration. It is indeed unfortunate that a Member of the Legislative Assembly who is expected to serve poor people is behaving like a hooligan and adversely affecting the law and order position of the State. These brazen acts of politicians cannot be tolerated by this Court any longer otherwise democracy and the rule of law will totally collapse. This court will be failing in its duty under the constitution if it does not uphold the law and does not intervene in these matters. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and land lord of house No. 9/a-4/35, Rampur Bagh, Bareilly and is residing in a part of the accommodation with his family. Respondent No. 6 is an M. L. A. belonging to the ruling Samajwadi Party from a constituency in Bareilly. In para 5 of the petition it has been alleged that the petitioner had earlier let out the disputed portion of the house in favour of one Dr. Anil Kumar Agarwal by an agreement dated 4-1-1980 true copy of which is Aanexure-1 to the petition. It is alleged in paragraph 7 of the petition that Dr. Agarwal has constructed a Nursing Home at F-11, Rampur Bagh and has been residing at his parental house at 35/g/11/20, Civil Lines, Rampur Garden, Bareilly. It is alleged that the petitioner asked Dr. Agarwal to vacate the disputed portion several times since he needed the same for his own use but Dr. Agarwal did not do so. It is alleged in para 9 that on 12-12-1994 the respondent No. 6 alongwith police force of the district came to the house of the petitioner. Respondent No. 6 barged into the house alongwith several dozen armed personnel wielding sten-guns, rifles and other fire-arms and forcibly entered into the portion occupied by Dr. Agarwal and took possession of the said portion. It is alleged in paragraph 11 of the petition that terroris ed by the aforesaid act of respondent No. 6 the petitioner's son Ashok Kumar Agarwal approached the local police, Kotwali and informed the police about the aforesaid high handedness and in the manner in which the house of the petitioner was grabbed by the aforesaid M. L. A. of the Ruling Party. The son of the petitioner made fervent requests to the police to intervene in the matter and protect the petitioner but the police refused to lodge his first information report or take any action in the matter. The petitioner sent a telegram to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, photo copy of which is Annexure 3 to the petition, but to no avail. The aforesaid incident was published in various newspapers. Photo copy of the publication in Dainik Jagran dated 13-12-1994 is Annexure 14 to the petition. It is alleged in paragraph 17 of the petition that fraud and collusion was committed by the respondent No. 6 and the procedure provided under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 was not followed. In paragraph 19 it is stated that the petitioner never received any notice as required under Rule 9 (3 ). In para 20 of the petition it is alleged that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have given a go-bye to all the provisions of law, fairness and justice and have illegally deprived the petitioner of his house and have taken forcibly possession In para 22 it is stated that no notice or information was ever received by the petitioner either from the District Magistrate or Rent Control and Eviction Officer regarding the allotment pro ceedings. Respondent No. 6 manipulated the allotment order in his favour within a period of three days with the collusion of respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 and has taken forcibly possession. In para 27 of the petition it is stated that from the newspaper reportings the petitioner came to know about the allot ment order dated 12-12-1994 was passed in favour of the respondent No. 6 but instead of his best efforts he could not get the copy of the same. In para 28 it is stated that the respondent No. 6 has a big house, namely, Indira Bhawan, Marwari Ganj, Bareilly where ha has been living comfortably with his family Iti para 32 it is stated that the respondent No. 6 who is an M. L. A. of the Ruling Samajwadi Parly is a very influential person and using the might of the Government has utilised police and district administra tion for his nefarious design to grab the house.
(3.) IN this case on 23-12-1994 this Court was of the opinion that the record of the trial court is necessary to be gone into and hence had directed for summoning the record The petitioner was also directed to serve the respon dents. The petitioner filed an amendment application alongwith the supple mentary affidavit annexing photostate copies of the relevant documents. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 6 and I have perused the same. The allegations in paras 19 and 22 of the writ petition to the effect that no notice was given to the petitioner as required by Rule 9 before passing the impugned allotment order has not been specifically denied but there is a bald averment in paragraph 32 that due process was adopted by the respondent No. 1 before passing the allotment order. In my opinion, this is hardly a reply to the allegations in paragraphs 19 and 22 of the petition. I have perused the relevant documents annexed to the supplementary affidavit and I am satisfied that there was no real service of notice on the petitioner and it was a fake service manipulated by the respon dent No. 6 in collusion with the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. In fact, this is the nefarious practice which is going on throughout the State of U. P. and it is very unfortunate that the Rent Control and Eviction Officers are passing surreptitious allotment orders behind the back of the owner/occupant without even giving a notice as required by law, and a fake service is shown on the paper although there is no real service on the owner/occupant. Thus, I am satisfied that the allegations in the petition are correct. It is evident from the record that not only was there no service of notice on the petitioner as required by Rule 9 (3) but also there was no compliance of Rule 8 which requires inspection in presence of the landlord and giving of opportunity under Rule 8 (3 ). Possession was taken forcibly by respondent No. 6, which is illegal as held by this Court in Santosh Kumar Anand v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, 1994 (2) ARC 168. This court cannot tolerate this kind of behaviour, otherwise no decent and law abiding citizen will be safe in his bouse. A mob of hooligans may storm into the house with a surreptitious allotment order, beat up the occupants, throw them out alongwith their belongings and hoist a Sag of the party as is being done these days. It is deeply rcgretable that the authorities are turning a blind eye to these illegali ties and succumbing to the politicians and behaving in the worst manner when their duty is to uphold law and orders. The Bureaucrats and the police receive their salaries and their perquisites from the taxes paid by the public. It is, therefore, their undoubted duty to give in return to the public law and order, but these bureaucrats and police officers are not justifying their salt by behaving in a cowardly fashion before the politicians. It is the duty of the civil servants to uphold law and order and they will not be permitted to take shelter behind the plea that they are carrying out the orders of political roasters when such orders are clearly and flagrantly illegal.;