Ravi S Dhavan J.- - (1.) THIS is a matter under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and the Rules framed under it.
(2.) THERE was a composite and simultaneous order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Fatehpur, rejecting the release application of the landlord and allotting the same premises to an Advocate and a Member of Legislative Assembly. This order was set aside by the learned District Judge in revision. The petitioner allottee is one Achal Singh, an Advocate and otherwise a Member of Legislative Assembly from Fatehpur The District Judge set aside the composite order in revision, on the ground, amongst others, that it violated the rules of natural justice and denied the landlord from effective participation in the proceedings which were otherwise quasi-judicial. The learned District Judge remanded the matter back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, with certain directions, for initiating the proceedings de novo. Aggrieved, the petitioner allottee, aforesaid has moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To get the perspective of the issue, it is best to set on record the direction issued by the learned District Judge in revision. The directions by themselves show where the Rent Control and Eviction Officer may have gone wrong. The directions given by the learned District Judge are in two sets. One contained in Rent Revision No. 34 of 1986 : Smt. Harbans Kaur and another v. Achal Singh by which the landlords pleaded that their release application had been illegally rejected on 28th February 1986 by. the composite order in which the allotment had also been made. The release application was directed to be heard afresh in the light of certain observations made' by the learned District Judge. The second revision was 33 of 1986 : Harbans Kaur v. Achal Singh, by which the learned District Judge quashed the aforesaid composite order of 28th February 1986 in reference to the allotment proceedings also. In effect, the matter relating to release and allotment were to be examined afresh. In both the revisions the learned District Judge required the parties to appear before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 19th February 1987. The direction given by the learned District Judge in a reference to the context in two revisions is as below- Re : release application in Rent Revision No. 34 of 1986. "The revision is allowed. Order dated 28-2-86 is set aside with the direction that the application for release of the accommodation made by the petitioner shall be heard after calling for the report of the inspector in the light of the observations made above. Parties are directed to appear before the lower court on 19-2-1987. Sd. R. G. Shukla IInd Addl. District Judge, Fatehpur 20-1-1987." Re : allotment application in Rent Revision No. 33 of 1986. "The revision petition is allowed. Order dated 28-2-86 is quashed and a direction is issued that (1) the learned R. C. & E. O., Fatehpur shall get the notice of vacancy pasted in the notice board of his office (2) he shall issue notice to the owners and landlords of the accommodation after declaration of the vacancy (3) he shall also invite the applications for allotment of the accommodation and (4) after passing at least three days from the said pasting consider the applications for allotment of the priority basis under the Act and in case any application for release or objection against the declaration of vacancy are preferred or found pending before him, after disposing them of, pass suitable orders for allotment, according to law. Parties are directed to appear before the learned lower court on 19-2-1987. Sd/- R. G. Shukla, Illrd Addl. District Judge, Fatehpur 20-1-1987." The premises are . 105, Civil Lines, Fatehpur. These were previously occupied by a tenant who ran a school known as "Playway English School". The Managers of the School thought it fit to shift to their own building. A vacancy was in the offing. It appears from the facts as presented by the petitioner that he got wind of the vacancy before the landlord did. He mentions in paragraph 3 of the petition that he had knowledge of an impending vacancy on 5th December 1985 and accordingly he placed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in Form A under Rule 10 (1).
(3.) VIGILANT prospective allottees keep watch on accommodations which are likely to fall vacant and the petitioner was one such a person. At times they move applications seeking allotment even before the landlord may have knowledge of a vacancy which may occur in the premises which he owns. The mere action of moving an application, is legal as long as the proceedings which are consequential are in accordance with law because if there is a slip in the procedure, injury may be caused to a class of persons under the Act, who are entitled to release of the accommodation. In the case before this Court, the slip occurred when in pursuance of an impending vacancy in the knowledge of the petitioner and intimated to the office of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, an inspection of the premises was ordered. From this stage onwards irregularities were committed and illegalities were precipitated.;