Sudhir Narain. J. - (1.) THE petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.1.1989, passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 16 (5) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the order dated 4.8.1990, passed by respondent No. 3, dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE petitioner is owner of premises No. 7-156-C, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur. He was in service and was posted at Lucknow. One Ajai Tandon was occupying the disputed accommodation. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for allotment. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer called for a report from the Rent Control Inspector. THE Rent Control Inspector took the statement of Ajai Kumar Tandon that he was likely to vacate the accommodation. He reported that the accommodation can be treated as vacant. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the vacancy by order dated 17.10.1985 and allotted it to respondent No. 1 on 30.10.1985. THE version of the petitioner was that he had no knowledge regarding the allotment order passed in favour of respondent No. 1 as he was posted at Lucknow and was residing there. He filed suit No. 575 of 1986 for possession against Ajai Kumar Tandon on the allegation that he was a licensee and his licence was revoked and he was entitled to its possession. During the pendency of the suit, one Mahesh Chandra Mishra also filed an application for allotment of the premises on 27th May, 1986. On his application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer called for a report from the Rent Control Inspector on 18.9.1986. THE Rent Control Inspector submitted a report that the accommodation in question is vacant. On 10.12.1986, the petitioner filed an objection before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that Ajai Kumar Tandon was living as licensee and not as tenant and he has filed suit No. 575 of 1986 for possession against him and the matter is subjudice before the Court, the accommodation should not be treated as vacant for the purpose of passing allotment order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, however, declared the accommodation in question as vacant by his order dated 9.4.1987 and directed to issue notice to the landlord. The objection of the petitioner that it should not be declared as vacant was rejected by him by order dated 19.6.1987. On 12.6.1987, he passed an order of allotment in favour of one Vishnu Kant Agarwal. In the order, it was stated that though the landlord has taken time for filing release application but he has not filed any release application and there was no other applicant for allotment and Vishnu Kant Agarwal is entitled for allotment. On 18.7.1987, the petitioner filed an application for release of the accommodation in question. On his application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. In the meantime, it appears that respondent No. 1 having come to know that allotment order has been passed in favour of Vishnu Kant Agarwal on 12.6.1987, filed an application for its cancellation. It appears that on his application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 2.9.1987 recalled the order dated 12th June, 1987 whereby he had allotted the accommodation in favour of Vishnu Kant Agarwal and further consigned the release application filed by the petitioner on 18.7.1987. It was observed in the order that he has perused the record of case No. 75 of 1985 whereby the accommodation had already been allotted on 30.10.1985 and it was not necessary to take any further proceedings in respect of the release or allotment. The papers were consigned. In this order dated 2.9.1987, there is nothing to show that the order was passed in presence of the petitioner or his counsel.
(3.) ON 14.9.1987, the petitioner filed an application for recall of the order dated 30.10.1985 on the allegation that the allotment order was obtained fraudulently concealing the material facts and without notice to him. He filed an affidavit in its support. It was stated by him in the application that he had come to know of the allotment order on 8th September, 1987 on inspection of the file and he had not received any notice regarding allotment proceedings. It was stated that the allotment order had been passed without any notice to him. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the review application by order dated 19.1.1989 on the ground that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had already passed an order on 2nd September, 1987 upholding the order dated 30.10.1985 and the allottee is also in possession, there was no reason to cancel the allotment order. The petitioner filed revision against the said order. Respondent No. 3 dismissed the revision on the ground that the application for review filed by the petitioner under Section 16 (5) of the Act was barred by limitation and further there was no jurisdictional error in the order passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.1.1989 and 4.8.1990 in this writ petition.;