K.N. Misra, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7th of August, 1986 passed by the A.D.M. (City), Lucknow declaring the premises in suit located in Shahnazaf Imembara compound, Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow, which is in occupation of the petitioner Smt. Aziz Fatima, as vacant.
(2.) It appears that the Opposite Party No. 3 Sri Tajdar Husain had moved an application for allotment in respect of the aforesaid premises with the allegation that the same are in illegal occupation of the petitioner Smt. Aziz Fatima and the same be declared vacant and allotted to him. A report was called from the Rent Control Inspector, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. According to this report dated 9-10-1985, the Rent Control Inspector had visited the spot and contracted the petitioner, who was occupying the same on monthly rent of Rs. 40 per month having been let out by the Secretary Husainabad Trust in the year 1979. It is also mentioned in the report of the Inspector that she has asserted that the trust has issued rent receipts regarding payment of rent and that she has also invested huge amount in making certain constructions at her own costs according to her need and convenience. In the report the Inspector has also mentioned that she had also indicated to him that she is possessed of the receipts of rent and regarding purchase of material for making construction which she will produce as and when required by the Court. In view of these facts the Inspector has not come to any conclusion as to whether the premises in question can be treated to be vacant and he had submitted the report for being considered by the concerned authorities after hearing concerned parties in the matter. A perusal of his report clearly indicates that it is not a report wherein the Inspector has positively come to the conclusion that the premises are vacant. The Inspector has also not taken any care to meet the landlord, i.e., the Secretary of the Husainabad Trust in order to ascertain the fact as revealed by the tenant. There is also non-compliance of sub-rule 2 of Rule 8 which clearly provides that the inspection of the building shall be made in the presence of the landlord and the tenant or) any other occupant. This report, therefore, cannot be treated to be a valid report and the A.D.M. (City) should not have acted upon such report while passing the impugned order. He should have required the Inspector to make inspection as per requirement contained in sub-rule 2 of Rule 8 which enjoins upon the Inspector to make inspection of the building in the presence of the landlord and tenant or any other occupant.
(3.) Apart from it the extract of proceedings conducted in this case on various dates from 16-12-1985 to 7-8-1986 indicates that the petitioner, who had filed objection on 7-8-1986, was not given any opportunity by learned A.D.M. (City) to lead evidence in support of her contentions contained in her objection, instead of providing opportunity to the petitioner the learned A.D.M. (City) proceeded to pass the order declaring the premises to be vacant. He has passed this order on the Inspector report, which as already observed above, could not be treated to be valid inspection report, nor any opinion could be formed on the facts stated above that the premises are lying vacant and the petitioner's possession over the premises in question was not that of a tenant but as an authorised occupant.;