Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.9.1991 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the disputed shop has been declared as vacant and the order dated 28.9.1991 whereby the vacancy has been notified in respect of the disputed shop.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that Smt. Premwatl. respondent No. 3. submitted an application dated 19.5.1988 purporting to be under Rule 10 (9) of U. P. Urban Buildings [Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules. 1972 (in short the Rules) nominating the petitioner for the purpose of allotment of the disputed shop claiming herself as landlady of the disputed property. Om Prakash Sharma, respondent No. 4, also filed an application for allotment alleging that the disputed accommodation had fallen vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. The Rent Control Inspector submitted a report on 27.6.1988 that the petitioner was living as tenant in the disputed shop and prior to him one Upeksha Rai was carrying on business in Electronics. One Umesh Ral was earlier its tenant. The petitioner had occupied the accommodation without any allotment order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer took the view that as the petitioner was in possession without any allotment order, his possession was unauthorised and declared the disputed shop as vacant by his order dated 26.9.1991.
(3.) Dinesh Rai, respondent No. 2. filed an application for release of the disputed shop on 24.10.1991 alleging that in a family settlement, he has become owner of the property and on the ground of his bona fide need, he is entitled for its release. The petitioner had also filed an application for allotment. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has yet not passed any order on the release application filed by respondent No. 2 or the allotment application submitted by respondent No. 4 and the petitioner.;