S.D.Agarwala - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Reg. of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972), hereinafter referred to as ' the Act. '
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present case are as follows : THE property in dispute is bouse No. 141A Mohalla Shiv Datt Golaothi district Bulandshahr. THE petitioner, Smt. Shanti Devi, is living in a portion of the said building. THE eastern 2/3rd portion of the building had been let out to the U. P. State Electricity Board. A suit no. 462 of 1969 was filed by the petitioner against the U. P. State Electricity Board for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages. This suit was decreed on 25th May, 1974. Against the order dated 25th May, 1974 a revision was filed before the Distt. Judge on the 23rd April, 1976. After the revision was dismissed by the District Judge, the petitioner moved an application for execution of the decree on 9th July, 1976. This execution application was registered as Execution Case No. 39 of 1976. In execution of her decree, the petitioner got possession of a portion of building let out to the U. P. State Electricity Board, but subsequently it appears that the possession was again taken back from the petitioner and the result was that the petitioner's decree for ejectment remained unexecuted. Against the order passed by the District Judge in revision on 23rd April, 1976, the U. P. State Electricity Board filed a civil revision no. 1684 of 1976 in this Court and obtained stay of the execution of the decree. On 18th July, 1979, the revision was dismissed by the High Court. The ultimate result was that the decree which was passed against the U. P. State Electricity Board became final by the High Court. Before the decree for ejectment became final by the judgment of this Court, the petitioner-landlady also filed an application for release of the accommodation under Section 21 of the Act on 19th February, 1976. This application for release was contested by the U. P. State Electricity Board and ultimately the release application was allowed on 18th February, 1980. Since the petitioner had already taken steps to execute the decree passed in her favour, the U. P. State Electricity Board in the execution proceedings filed an application for grant of time for vacating the accommodation till 30th June, 1980. This application was allowed by the Munsif on 21st February, 1980 and time was granted to the U. P. State Electricity Board to vacate by 30th June, 1980. That inspite of the undertaking given by the U. P. State Electricity Board, the accommodation was not vacated. The petitioner, thereafter, moved an application for execution requesting the Munsif to execute the decree, but for one reason or the other, this matter remained pending. The petitioner has attached the order-sheet of the execution case to the petition as Annexure 9. During the pendency of this execution application, Bhagirath Sharma, respondent no. 3 moved an application for allotment of the accommodation. On this application, on the basis of the report obtained from the Inspector on 7th January, 1983, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the house vacant on 13th January, 1983. Subsequently, on 11th March, 1982, an allotment order was passed in favour of respondent no. 3 Bhagirath Sharma. As soon as the petitioner came to know of this allotment order, she filed an application to set aside the exparte allotment. The petitioner also filed an application for stay, but she could not succeed in the same and ultimately the possession of the property was delivered to respondent no. 3. The petitioner, thereafter filed a revision under Section 18 of the Act being rent control revision no. 3 of 1983, challenging the allotment order passed in favour of respondent no. 3. This revision was dismissed on 31st May, 1984. It is against this order that this petition has been filed challenging this order.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions before me. The first contention is that once the order of release was passed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property (it cannot be ?) allotted to respondent no. 3, the allotment order is wholly without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. The second contention is that he was not given an opportunity by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer before declaring the accommodation as vacated and as such, the allotment order is invalid and the third submission made by learned counsel is that the petitioner was not given a notice as required by Rule 9 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act and as such also the allotment order is void in law. In so far as second and third contentions are concerned it is not necessary for me to go into the detailed facts in regard to these contentions, as I am of the opinion that the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. If after the release application was allowed, no allotment order could have been passed in respect of the accommodation in dispute, the question whether the petitioner had knowledge or was issued notice in regard to the declaration of vacancy before passing the allotment order, becomes wholly redundant.;