M.P. Sexana, J. - (1.) This is a petition which arises out of proceedings under section 16 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1976. The allotment order passed in favour of the petitioner has been set aside by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Meerut. Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Seri Prestam Singh are opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. It consists of the ground floor, first, second and third floors. A portion of it was in the tenancy of Munni and Smt. Sunehri. Opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 got it released under section 21 on 20 5.1976. They were already in possession of the remaining portion. In this manner they became in possession of the entire house on 17.6.76. They are alleged to have gone to P.L. Sharma Hospital where one of their relations, Chuttan Lal, was admitted and other member of the family had also accompanied them. At that time a campaign of removal of encroachments was going on in Meerut. During their absence the police went at the house and got the projection of the house demolished and had locked the entire house. Opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 moved an application before the City Magistrate for delivery of the goods narrating the entire facts. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer was deputed to visit the spot and submit a report. He gave his report on 7.7.1976 to the effect that the owners were living in the second and third floors while the first floor was vacated by Smt. Kaniz. Hence the key of second and third floor was given to them and the first floor was declared to be vacant. The vacancy was notified. The opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 fred objection stating that Smt. Kaniz, was never in possession of this house nor any portion of it including the first floor ever fell vacant. There after another Inspector was deputed to visit the spot and he reported that the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 were in possession of the second and third floor, but Smt. Seema, Smt. Kanta and Smt. Shakuntla were in possession of the first floor. He also referred to the assessment chitthas. After perusing the entire material the Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that after release the first floor was let out to Smt. Kaniz who vacated it as reported by the first Inspector. Therefore, vacancy occurred and as a number of persons had applied for its allotment, it was allotted to the present petitioner who was at that time posted at Meerut in the Police department and was without a house.
(2.) The owners filed a revision under section 18 of the said Act and the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the first floor had not fallen vacant and was not liable for allotment. Accordingly, the revision was allowed and the order dated 30 8.1976 passed by the Prescribed Authority was vacated. Now the alleged allottee has filed this writ petition.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for both sides. There is no controversy that the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 had got the portion of the house which was in possession of Munni and Smt. Sunheri released in their favour. They were, therefore, in possession of the entire house. The question which arises for consideration is whether after the said release the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 let out the ground floor to Smt. Kaniz and the latter vacated it before 17.6.1976. The learned IIIrd Additional District Judge has analysed the entire evidence and in my judgment has made a correct appraisement of the same. Not an iota of evidence was brought on the record to show that after the release in favour of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3, the ground floor was let out to Smt. Kaniz. Considerable reliance was placed on the assessment chittha of 1976 in which name of Smt. Kaniz appears against house No. 29. No assessment of the house was done on its basis nor the accuracy of chittha is at an all warranted. The second Inspector had inspected the spot and given his report on 24.8.1976 and he nowhere gave out that Smt. Kaniz was in possession of the ground floor. On the other hand he reported that Smt. Seema, Kanta and Smt. Shakuntala were in possession of it. This conflict in the two reports made it clear that the Inspector had given wrong reports. The landlords filed affidavit to the effect that the first floor was never let out to Smt. Kaniz after the release nor it was vacated by her. No counter affidavit was filed by the present petitioner. Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge was right in relying on the affidavit filed by the co-owners. No manifest error of law exists in the order passed by the learned District Judge.;