- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Subject-matter of impugnment in writ petition No. 41491 of 1992 is the order, dated 30. 10. 1992 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad in respect of the premises viz. 15, Admonston Road (Now) 21, Tashkand Marg, Civil Lines. Allahabad owned by Sri Ghanshyam Das Agrawal. On 3. 7. 1992 the owner Sri Ghanshyam Das Agrawalgavean intimation to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad that one out-house of the premises aforestated consisting of one hall, one kitchen, one side room and latrine-bathroom was under the tenancy of Smt. Pushpa Chakrawarti at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month plus water tax and further that Smt. Pushpa Chakrawarti expired on 1. 6. 1992 leaving no heirs or successors and further that in the circumstances a vacancy had occurred in respect of the said premises. On receipt of the intimation, Rent Control Inspector made a local inspection and submitted a report whereupon the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared vacancy in respect of the said premises vide order dated 16. 7. 1992. The vacancy so declared was notified and applications for allotment invited pursuant to the said order and 20. 3. 1992 was the date fixed for further action in the matter. The premises aforestated was alloted to Smt. Rukmani Devi Pant vide order dated 31. 8. 1992 and the landlord was directed to hand over the possession to the allottee on or before 15. 9. 1992. Form 'd' was issued on 16. 9. 1992 directing the Inspector, Police Station, Civil Lines, Allahabad to ensure that the vacant possession of the premises allotted to Smt. Rukmani Devi Pant which was earlier in occupation of Smt. Pushpa Chakrawarti was handed over to the allottee. The allottee Smt. Rukmani Devi Pant obtained possession and informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by her letter dated 17. 9. 1992 that the possession of the allotted premises was handed over to her on 17. 9. 1992 at 8 a. m. It was, however, mentioned in the said intimation dated 17. 9. 1992 that the possession of one big room mentioned in the said allotment order could not be obtained, as it was in possession of another person and further that in this regard steps would be taken later on. Local police also submitted a report to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the allottee obtained possession of the allotted accommodation on 17. 9. 1992 at 8 a. m. without intervention of the police and there remained no necessity for any police action in the matter.
(2.) ON 24. 9. 1992 the allottee Smt. Rukmani Devi Pant moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for delivery of possession of the entire allotted premises stating therein that as per order of the Court she obtained possession of the allotted premises on 17. 9. 1992 but she could not obtain possession in respect of one room being in occupation of the Tejbhan Singh who claimed himself to be the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -. It was further stated that tenancy of Teibhan Singh in respect of one of the rooms allotted to her was not proper. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer without issuing any notice to Tejbhan Singh and without giving any opportunity to him passed an order dated 30. 10. 1992 redescribing the allotted accommodation in such a way as to include therein the room in occupation and tenancy of Tejbhan Singh. It would be pertinent to mention here that on 23. 9. 1992 Tejbhan Singh is said to have moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer alleging therein that the allottee Smt. Rukmani Devi Pant wanted to take forcible possession of room in his tenancy since long and praying that the allottee be directed not to interfere with his possession of the premises other than the one allotted to her. A letter dated 25. 9. 1992 also appears to have been written by the petitioner to the landlord-Ghanshyam Das Agrawal calling for information' from the latter if Sn Tejbhan Singh had been in occupation as tenant and if so since when. The landlord-Sri Ghanshyam Das Agrawal also wrote a letter to Smt. Rukmani Devi Pant in response to her letter dated 25. 9. 1992 stating therein that she had manipulated to procure the allotment order with the pressure of Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi on the authorities and that the tenancy of Sri Tejbhan Singh in respect of the room in question was valid and legal since 1975. Sri Ghanshyam Das Agrawal landlord had also moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer stating therein that Smt. Rukmani Devi Pant had got no concern with the accommodation in occupation and tenancy of Sri Tejbhan Singh since the year 1975 on a rent of Rs. 100/- per month. The order sheet indicates that 23. 10. 1992 was the date fixed in the case but no order could be passed therein as the Presiding Officer was busy in administrative work. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 31. 10. 1992 but for reasons best known to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer he passed the order dated 30. 10. 1992 which is the subject-matter of impugnment in writ petition No. 41491 of 1992 filed by Tejbhan Singh. Writ Petition No. 3406 of 1994 has been filed by Smt. Rukmani Devi Pant against an order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer consequent upon the interim order dated 19. 7. 1993 passed by the Court in writ petition No. 41491 of 1992 thereby directing the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide the question as to whether the disputed accommodation in occupation of Tejbhan Singh was part of the tenament of the deceased Smt. Pushpa Chakrawarti. Pursuant to the said direction, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer held, by order dated 30. 12. 1993 impugned in writ petition No. 3406 of 1994, that the disputed accommodation in occupation of Tejbhan Singh was not the part of tenament of the deceased tenant Smt. Pushpa Chakrawarti. Writ Petition No. 41491 of 1992 is an admitted writ petition while writ petition No. 3406 of 1994 was up for motion hearing on 30. 3. 1994 and it was directed to be listed along with writ petition No. 41491 of 1992. Sri Aditya Narain Counsel appearing on behalf ot Smt. Rukmani Devi Pant and Sri Kripa Shankar Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of Tej Bhan Singh agreed that it would be convenient to dispose of both the writ petitions by a common order and accordingly the learned counsel for the parties were heard on 6th and 7th November, 1996. The order dated 30. 10. 1992 impugned in writ petition No. 41491 of 1992 cannot be sustained for the simple reason that it was passed without any notice to Tejbhan Singh who is adversely affected by the said order. It is also vitiated nor the reason that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad, by means of the said order altered the earlier order of allotment dated 31. 8. 1992 issued in favour of Smt. Rukmani Devi Pant without deciding whether the accommodation in occupation of Tejbhan Singh was part of the tenament of the erstwhile tenant Smt. Pushpa Chakrawarti a question which arose on the face of the application moved by the landlord-Ghanshyam Das Agrawal before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on 7. 10. 1992 and also on the own application filed by Smt. Rukmani Devi Pant, as stated above. It is clear from the intimation given by the landlord under Section 15 of the Act and also from the allotment order dated 31. 8. 1992 issued in favour of Smt. Rukmani Devi Pant that the accommodation in possession of Tejbhan Singh was not specifically declared vacant by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer nor was it initially allotted to Smt. Rukmani Devi pant as per allotment order dated 31. 8. 1992. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer having been informed of the tenancy and occupation of Tejbhan Singh since 1975 was not justified in passing the order dated 30. 10. 1992 without affording any opportunity of hearing to Tejbhan Singh. The order dated 30. 10. 1992 is, therefore, not sustainable in law.
(3.) SO far as the order dated 30. 12. 1993 is concerned, suffice it to say that it does not suffer from any manifest infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on proper self-direction to the material on record including the affidavits of the witnesses mentioned in the order and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, has come to the conclusion that Tejbhan Singh has been in occupation of the room in question since 1975 and that this room was not under the tenancy of Suit. Pushpa Chakrawarti nor was this room mentioned in the order dated 16. 7. 1992 declaring vacancy in respect of the premises in tenancy of Smt. Pushpa Chakrawarti. In this view of the matter the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was fully justified in holding that the allotment of the said room in favour of Smt. Rukmani Devi Pant without first declaring it vacant was illegal. The conclusions drawn by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, in his order dated 30. 12. 1993, on the issue he was called upon to decide vide interim order dated 19. 7. 1993 passed in writ petition No. 41491 of 1992 are conclusions of fact based on appraisal of material on record and therefore warrant no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly the writ petition No. 41491 of 1992 succeeds and is allowed and the order dated 30. 10. 1992 is quashed while the writ petition No. 3406 of 1994 fails and is dismissed with cost on parties. Order accordingly. .;