P.N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the son of Kishan Gopal, the landlord of the premises in dispute. According to his case, set up in this writ petition, he obtained an allotment order in his favour on 14th May, 1975. Thereafter in connection with his treatment and that of his wife, he went to Bombay on 23rd June, 1975, and returned from there on 25th July, 1975. It is alleged that taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner, Respondent No. 3 Radhey Lal got the allotment order dated 14th May, 1975, cancelled by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 2nd July, 1975. No notice of this cancellation was given to the petitioner. It is further alleged that on 11th July, 1975, the premises in dispute were allotted in favour of Respondent No. 3. When the petitioner returned from Bombay he filed an application for review before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, which was rejected on 13th February, 1976, vide Annexure '8' filed along with this petition. Thereafter he filed a revision before the District Judge, Mathura, which has also been rejected on 29th October, 1976, vide Annexure '10' filed along with this petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) The allegations made by the petitioner in this writ petition are controverted in the counter-affidavit. The case set up by respondent No. 3 is that the father of the petitioner who was the owner of the premises in dispute had applied for release of the accommodation in question, which was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application and obtained the allotment order dated 14th May, 1975, concealing facts from the authorities concerned, with regard to the refusal of the application for release filed by his father. It is also alleged that the petitioner being the son of the landlord came within the definition of family and he was not entitled to separate allotment in his favour. It is further alleged that the petitioner was duly informed of the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment in his favour as was evident from the report of the process server. The petitioner refused to accept notice. As such it was not open to him to say that the cancellation order had been passed in his absence and without intimation to him. It is further alleged in reply to the writ petition that the petitioner was a wealthy person who had broken the lock of the premises, but ultimately after the allotment order was passed in favour of respondent No. 3, possession of the premises was redelivered to respondent No. 3 with the aid of the police on 2nd November, 1976 in pursuance of the said order of allotment in his favour. It is alleged that the impugned orders passed by the authorities concerned did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction which would warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
(3.) I have carefully perused the writ petition as well as the impugned orders and the annexures filed along with this writ petition. The review application was rejected on 13th February, 1976, on the ground that it had no force. It can be safely inferred from this order that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was not satisfied that the petitioner had not been served with notice prior to the cancellation of the allotment order in his favour. It can also be inferred from this order that the petitioner's case that he had gone to Bombay for his treatment and the treatment of his wife was not accepted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer ; otherwise the impugned order would not have been passed. The petitioner's case is that he had gone out of Mathura to Bombay and he had attempted to file medical certificates from the Doctors at Bombay. On the other hand, the respondent's case is that these certificates were unreliable documents and that the petitioner had remained present at Mathura throughout. He deliberately evaded service of notice which was taken to him by the process server. In the first place, these are disputed questions of fact. The proper authority to judge the correctness or otherwise of these allegations was the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, and not this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction. Secondly the fact that the review application filed by the petitioner has been rejected implies that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was not satisfied that the allegations made by the petitioner were correct. I do not find any illegality or manifest error in the exercise of his jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 13th February, 1976, refusing to give relief to the petitioner.;