J.C. Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard petitioner's counsel at length and the learned standing counsel and perused the impugned order and the material placed on record.
(2.) The proceedings relating to vacancy were initiated on an intimation of vacancy given by the landlord. While giving the said intimation-, the landlord, who is an officer in Armed Forces also moved an application for the release of the accommodation in question on the ground that the same was required for the residence use of his children as he had to remain posted on "hard stations". It appears that the said accommodation was ordered to be inspected by the Rent Control Inspector. It is apparent that the Rent Control Inspector did not contact the landlord before submitting the report nor any notice as required under Rule 8 (2) of the rules was served upon the landlord, The release application of the landlord was rejected by the Rent Control Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. No notice as contemplated under Rule 9 (3) of the Rules was also proved to have been served upon the landlord, After rejecting the release application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer proceeded to make an order of allotment in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was put into possession of the disputed accommodation. On coming to know of this, the landlord filed revision before the respondent No. 1. The lower revisional court examined the matter thoroughly and also perused the original record including the despatch register kept in the Office of Rent Control Officer and gave a categorical finding that forgery was committed in the despatch register merely with a view to indicate that notice was sent to the landlord. Cogent and convincing reasons have been given by the revisional court while recording the said finding. There is even no finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer nor any material has been placed before this Court in this writ petition that the notices as required under law were so served upon the landlord.
(3.) The question that arises for consideration is as to whether in the circumstances where no notice as required under the Rules is proved to have been served upon the landlord, his application for release could be rejected ex parte and application for allotment of the petitioner could be allowed?;