- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner have challenged the order dated 1542-1995 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby he allowed the revision filed by the landlord respondent No. 2 and set aside the allotment order dated 24- 4-1992 passed in favour of the petitioners.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 2 is the owner and landlord of House No. 194-A, Kashyap Kothi. Macnair Road, Bareilly. He purchased this dis puted property from the erstwhile owner by a registered sale-deed dated 23-4-1990. One Ravi Pandey and Sushma Singh filed application for allotment of the disputed house on the allegation that one 'samita Tent House' was its tenant. THE tenant vacated the house and the landlord has put his lock on the disputed house. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to inspect the premises in question. On 3rd May, 1991 the Rent Control Inspector is alleged to have inspected the premises in question. He found that the disputed house was looked. He took the statements of one Sri Nathoo Lal and Moti Lal Vaishya who informed him that the disputed house was under the tenancy of one Samita Tent House and they used to keep their goods in it. THEy vacated the house in question some time ago and handed over its vacant possession to the landlord. THE Rent Control Inspector submitted a report on 30th May, 1991 stating that the accom modation is in occupation of the landlord but it is locked. THE landlord was living outside and his address was Katras Road, Dhanbad, Bihar. After obtaining the report the Rent Control and Eviction Officer sent a notice to respondent No. 2 by registered post. The notice was returned with the remark "addressee out of station". The Rent Control and Eviction Officer relying solely upon the report of the Rent Control Inspector declared the Accommodation as vacant by his order dated 4th July, 1991. He took the view that the notice was sent but it has come with the remark that the addressee is out of station but he appeals to have deliberately not received the notice. Respondent No. 2 filed an objection against declaration of vacancy of 1-8-1991. He also filed an application dated 28-1991 to recall the order dated 4th July, 1991 whereby the vacancy was declared and to give him opportunity to lead evidence to show that there was no vacancy. It was stated that the accommodation in question was never let out to any person known as Samta Tent House. It was in his occupation and he had purchased it for his residential purposes and to stay whenever ne comes from Dhanbad to Bareilly. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not pass any order on the ap plication of the petitioner dated 2nd August, 1991. On the other hand he received affidavit of one Satish Kumar and Sri Raj Kumar dated 6-8-1991 wherein they as serted that one Samita Tent House was tenant of the disputed accommodation and on its vacation by it, the landlord occupied the same and it should be deemed as vacant under Section 12 of the Act.
(3.) ON 6th April, 1992 the petitioner applied for allotment of the premises in question. ON 24th April, 1992 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer relying upon the contents of affidavit of Satish Kumar and Sri Ram Kumar that one Samta Tent House was tenant and after its vacation it was handed over to the landlord-respon dent No. 2 and taking into consideration the fact that as Bhartiya Janta Party, Bareilly has no other accommodation for its office purposes, allotted the same to the petitioners by the same order. Respondent No. 2 aggrieved by this order filed Revision No. 46 of 1992. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 also filed revision jointly being Revision No. 54 of 1992 in the court of District Judge, Bareilly challenging the order of allotment dated 24-4-1992. Respondent No. 1 allowed the revision vide his order dated 15- 12-1995 and set aside the allotment order on the finding that it has been passed in clear violation of the law. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition.;