Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition arises out of an allotment proceeding in respect of house No. 56, Vijai Nagar, Meerut. The petitioner is an allottee of the said accommodation while the contesting respondent No. 2 is admittedly the owner and landlord of the said accommodation. He has died during the pendency of the writ petition and has been substituted by his son Satya Bhushan. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and are not much in dispute. An accommodation comprising of five rooms, Aangan, Verandah, Kitchen and Latrine of house No. 56, Vijai Nagar, Meerut was declared vacant by the order dated 7.7.1978 (Annexure -1) and it was allotted to one Anand Prakash Tyagi by the order dated 8.3.1979. Anand Prakash Tyagi vacated the said house and the vacancy was notified on 15.12.1986. The landlord -respondent No. 2 applied for the release of the said accommodation on the ground that he needs it for his own use and occupation through application dated 27.1.1987. The said release application was rejected by the order dated 26.2.1988 and attained finality as it was not challenged further. The accommodation was allotted, after the rejection of the release application, in favour of one Giriraj Kishore in Case No. 27 of 1987 on 27.2.1988.
(2.) IT appears for one reason or the other, Giriraj Kishore could not occupy the accommodation allotted to him in pursuance of the aforesaid allotment order dated 27.2.1988. He, on 7.11.1988, filed an application that he is not interested in the allotted accommodation any more and the same may be allotted to another person. On the said applicant, a report from the Rent Control Inspector was called for and the objections were invited by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer which was numbered as Case No. 251 of 1988. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 3.3.1989, after hearing the landlord, allotted the disputed accommodation in favour of S.P. Rana, the petitioner herein. The said order was challenged by the landlord in Civil Revision No. 105 of 1989 which came up for consideration before IXth Additional District Judge, Meerut, who by the impugned order dated 11.10.1994, allowed the revision and set aside the allotment order dated 3.3.1989 on the ground that before declaring the accommodation in question as vacant, the provisions of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not complied with and also that under section 17 of the Act, a landlord has right to nominate a tenant in respect of a part of the building which is sought to be allotted wherein and in the other part of the building the landlord is residing. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present writ petition has been filed by the allottee. Before proceeding further, it may be placed on record that the petitioner has come into possession of the property in question indisputably and he is residing therein. The suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent/damages, etc. being Suit No. 422 of 1994 has also been instituted by the landlord before a Competent Civil Court. The proceedings of the said suit have been stayed by the trial Judge by the order dated 23.9.1996 on the ground that the High Court has passed status quo order in the above writ petition. Evidently, the Court below has erroneously stayed the proceedings of the said suit as it had nothing to do with the pendency of the above writ petition. The Court below has misconstrued and misinterpreted the order dated 10.11.1994 passed by this Court which provides that "until further orders of this Court, status quo regarding possession shall be maintained by the parties". By no stretch of imagination, the said order intended to say the proceedings of the civil suit No. 422 of 1994. The High Court was not even made aware of the filing and continuance of the suit No. 422 of 1994. The Trial Court is, therefore, directed to proceed with the hearing of O.S. No. 422 of 1994 without any further delay in accordance with the hearing of O.S. No. 422 of 1994 without any further delay in accordance with law expeditiously inasmuch as about thirteen years have already lapsed from the date of institution of the suit, for no fault of either of the parties. It shall make an endeavour to hear and decide the suit preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
(3.) NOW coming to the merits of the writ petition, the Revisional Court proceeded to allow the revision on the short ground that the provisions of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules framed under the Act were not complied with. These provisions being mandatory in nature, the entire proceeding being de hors thereof, stand vitiated. The validity of the said part of the judgment of the Revisional Court has been questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition.;