- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18-10-1994, whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, respondent No. 4 allotted the accommodation in favour of respondent No. 5 and a writ or mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the possession of the disputed accommodation to the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the petitioner is landlady of the house situate in Civil Lines, Azamgarh City. Respondent No. 5 claiming himself a President of the Samajwadi Party, Azamgarh, sent a letter to the Chief Minister requesting him that the house of the petitioner in which office of-District Supply Officer is running may be shifted to D. C. F. Department and the house of the petitioner may be allotted for the purpose of office of Samjajwadi Party at Azamgarh. On this letter the District Magistrate, Azamgarh also made a report on 24-2-1994. The letter on behalf of the Chief Minister was issued to the Deputy Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Azamgarh for transfer of the office of District Supply Officer to old Panchayat Bhawan. The petitioner on coming to know that the accommodation is going to be vacated, moved an application for release of the disputed house on 21-9-1994. On 10-10-1994 respondent No. 5 filed an application for allotment of the disputed house for the purpose of office of Samajwadi Party. Azamgarh. On 12th October, 1994 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued a notice indicating that the house in question was likely to fall vacant and the persons desiring for allot ment/release can file application. The applications will be considered on 18-10- 1994. On 18-10-1994 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an allotment order in favour of respondent No. 5 and on the same day the possession of the house in question was taken by him. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition. This Court issued the following interim mandamus on 1-11-1994 : "issue interim mandamus to the respondents to deliver back the possession or 10 show cause within a period of three weeks as to why the same may not be done. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 no counter affidavit has been filed. On behalf of respondent No. 5 a counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Ram Adhar Singh Yadav. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the notice was given to the petitioner before the allotment order was passed and her release application was rejected. She had full knowledge of the proceedings as she herself filed an application dated 15-10-1994 in which she had stated that she had come to know that house in question was likely to fall vacant. She was not required to be given any further opportunity or notice.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vacancy was alleged to have been notified on 12th October, 1994. The petitioner was not given any notice of the order of declaration of vacancy nor she was intimated about the date of hearing of the application for release or the allotment. The vacancy was notified on 12-10-1994 and on 18-10-1994 the allotment order was passed.;