R.S.Dhavan, J. - (1.) THIS is a matter under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner, M/s. Shushila Paper Mills Private Limited, Kanpur, as the name suggests, is a Private Limited Company. The issue in the present petition is, in effect, the allotment order of 1 -7 -1985, which apparently has been set -aside by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in Rent Revision No. 135 of 1985 : Dr. S.K. Srivastava v. Misri Lal Jaisawal and another, by an order of 23 November, 1985, annexure '5' to the writ petition. The allotment order has not been placed on record of the writ petition Thus, this Court required the learned counsel for the petitioner to place the certified copy of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by which the premises were allotted to the petitioner as also the certified copy of the order of allotment dated 1 July, 1985 on form 'B', being the allotment order itself, by virtue of which the petitioner would have become a tenant by allotment of the premises in dispute. The premises are situate at 7/105 -A, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur. The landlord, Dr. S.K. Srivastava, respondent No. 2, resides in Lucknow. In fact, this circumstance of the landlord residing outside Kanpur has created complications to the advantage of the petitioner, who had the allotment order in its favour and to the disadvantage of the landlord.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to the passing of an allotment order in favour of the petitioner are that the premises, aforesaid, were initially occupied by the U.P. Khadi Gram Udyog Board at the time when the landlord's father was alive. The U.P. Khadi Gram Udyog Board vacated the premises as the landlord's father required it for his personal use The landlord's father died. The Khadi Gram Udyog Board, aforesaid, did vacate the premises and the landlord moved an application under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act seeking release of the premises; implying thereby that the premises be not subjected to allotment proceedings. This release application was registered as Case No. 24 of 1983. Consequent upon this release application being filed, an enquiry was ordered by the District Magistrate, Kanpur on the question of ascertainment of vacancy under the rules within the meaning of Rule 8. Thus far the facts are not in dispute There is a controversy whether the landlord had notice of an order declaring the premises vacant. The vacancy was declared on 26th June, 1985. The landlord contends that he had no notice of it and any notice alleged to have been served is suspect. However, in the present writ petition the vacancy is not in issue; the allotment order of 1 July 1985 is. This is the third writ petition of the petitioner. Earlier two writ petitions were dismissed. In pursuance of the allotment order of 1 July, 1985, the petitioner took possession, but, the landlord sought restitution by moving an application under Rule 21(f) pleading that the allotment order had been occasioned by fraud. Apprehending that he may have to deliver possession back to the landlord the petitioner filed two injunction suits, unsuccessfully. Ultimately, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by an order of August, 1985 delivered possession of the premises to the landlord on the same day.
(3.) THE fact that the possession of the premises had been retrieved by the landlord on sufficient cause on an application under Rule 22(f) was one aspect of the matter. Simultaneously, the landlord challenged the allotment order of 1 July, 1985 by a Rent Revision No. 135 of 1985, aforesaid. This brings this Court to the issues raised in the present writ petition.;