J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.11.95 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer 1st, Allahabad, respondent No. 1 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) rejecting the nomination dated 17.11.95 made by petitioner No. 1, the landlord, in favour of respondent No. 2and further directing the Rent Control Inspector to submit report after making inspection of the premises in question afresh.
(2.) The dispute relates to a shop bearing No. 19/35 Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Allahabad and the same is admittedly owned by petitioner No. 1. One Smt. Shobha Rani Seth was occupying the said shop as tenant of petitioner No. 1. It is said that Smt. Shobha Rani Seth, the sitting tenant, gave an information in writing through letter dated 27.9.95 to petitioner No. 1 that she was going to vacate the tenanted shop by 15.11.95 as she was likely to get another shop for carrying her business. She further stated in the said letter that she was removing all her belongings, fittings, fixtures and furnitures from the tenanted shop and would deliver its vacant possession by the aforesaid date. She requested the landlord to take possession himself or through any person authorised by him for that purpose. This letter was received by the landlord on 29.9.95. As per the provisions of Section 15 (1) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter to be called as the Act) read with Rule 9 (1) intimation of expected vacancy was sent by the landlord to the respondent No. 1. This intimation was received in the office of respondent No. 1 on the same day, i.e., 5.10.95. The respondent No. 1 directed the Rent Control Inspector to make inspection and submit his report. In compliance of the said order, Rent Control Inspector made Inspection of the premises in question on 7.10.95, 9.10.95 and 14.10.95 and submitted report to respondent No. 1 on 16.10.95. In the said report, he stated that the Inspection of the shop was got done by the husband of the tenant whereupon it was found that the tenant has substantially removed the goods from the shop and only small articles were lying there. No business was being carried on by the tenant and the shop was kept locked. He further reported that the inquiry made by him revealed that the shop was likely to be vacated by the tenant in near future. However, as the tenant himself was not present, her husband refused to give anything in writing. In that report, the Inspector concluded that from the facts collected during inquiry, it appeared that the tenant Smt. Shobha Rani Seth was likely to vacate the shop in near future and this has also been verified by the landlord in the intimation of vacancy sent by him. On this report, respondent No. 1 ordered that notices be sent to all concerned. However, it appears that thereafter no further action was taken and respondent No. 1 slept over the matter with regard to the allotment proceedings. When no order of allotment was passed for long the landlord on 17.11.95 sent a letter to the R. C. and E. O. requesting him to make an order of allotment in favour of petitioner No. 2, his nominee. The R. C. and E. O., however, by the impugned order dated 30.11.95 rejected the nomination made by the landlord.
(3.) On behalf of respondent No. 1 counter-affidavit of one of his officials has been filed. Respondent No. 2 Smt. Shobha Rani Seth has also filed her own counter-affidavit, while respondent No. 3. who has been impleaded by the court's order dated 6.8.95, has also filed counter-affidavit, it may be mentioned here that respondent No. 3 claims himself to be an applicant for allotment.;