M.P. Saxena, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of allotment proceedings under section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) Rameshwar Dayal, respondent No. 3, is the owner of shop No. 7/506/3 Bazar Dinanath, Saharanpur. One Sri Pal Jain was its tenant. He vacated it sometimes in the end of December, 1973. On 31-12-1973 Narendra Kumar Gupta, respondent No. 1, applied for its allotment. On 23-1-1974 the landlord gave an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer intimating that the shop had fallen vacant and that he shall have no objection if it was allotted to any one. It appears to have reached the office of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 24-1-1974. The Rent Inspector was directed to make an enquiry about vacancy. He gave his report on 20-1-1974 to the effect that the shop had really fallen vacant. On 30th January, 1974, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer notified vacancy. On 31-1-1974 the present petitioners moved an application for allotment offering to pay Rs. 50/- per month as rent though according to respondent No. 1 it was previously let out at Rs. 10/-per month only. On 11-2-1974 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer invited applications for allotment fixing 18-2-74 for orders. On this date before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could pass any order he received a registered notice dated 16-2-1974 sent by the landlord intimating that the shop in question be allotted to his nominees, namely, the present petitioners. He claimed this right on the ground that the shop had fallen vacant by the end of December, 1973, yet it was not allotted till 24-1-1974 as required by section 17 of the Act. On 21-2-1974 Suresh Chandra Gupta, opposite party No. 2 also moved an application for its allotment. After hearing the parties the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the shop to Narendra Kumar Gupta on 16-3-74 considering his need to be paramount and by applying the principle of first-come first serve.
(3.) Both the landlord and the present petitioners filed appeals Nos. 96 and 101 of 1974. They were rejected by the learned District Judge, interalia, on the grounds that the benefit of section 17 of the Act could not be claimed since the requirements of section 15 were not fulfilled. He also held that the allotment in favour of Narendra Kumar was according to law. Now the nominees alone have filed this writ petition. It may be stated that Narendra Kumar Gupta, opposite party No. 1 is alleged to have vacated the shop during the pendency of this writ petition and an application for its allotment was moved by Surendra Chandra Seth, opposite party No. 8 but the proceedings have been stayed by this court.;