KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rahul Verma, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Rajesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against an order passed by respondent No.1 dated 9.10.2009 by which revision filed by respondent being landlord has been allowed and order of allotment made in favour of petitioner has been cancelled. It appears that the property in question is a residential house situated at House No.212/1,South Civil Lines, Muzaffarnagar and respondent No.2 is the owner of half of the share of house in question. Respondent No.2 is living in district Rishikesh, District Dehradoon and doing job in the Irrigation Department and his brother Sri Surendra Kumar Singh doing job at Muradabad. It appears that after death of father of respondent, petitioner wanted to get the allotment of the said premises, made an application for allotment. A report was submitted by Rent Control Inspector on 4.6.2001 and in the said report it was said that building in question is vacant and earlier it was in possession of one Neeraj Rajwanshi, who was erstwhile tenant of the premises in dispute. This report was submitted by Rent Control Inspector and has obtained the signature of two witnesses. A notice was sent on 6.6.2001 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer inviting objection by the landlord. On an application filed by petitioner, notice was sent and date was fixed on 6.7.2001. Objections were filed on beahlf of landlord stating therein that it was let out to tenant and it is not in a vacant position and one of the brother after retirement wanted to settle there but in spite of the aforesaid fact upon a finding recorded on the basis of report submitted by Rent Control Inspector, an order of declaring the vacancy was passed on 28.5.2003. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 9 to writ petition. Respondent-landlord aggrieved by aforesaid order filed a writ petition before this Court and the writ petition is still pending. In the meantime, on the same day, an order was passed allotting the said premises to petitioner. Respondent aggrieved by order of allotment filed a revision before the revisional court and the revisional court by the order impugned has allowed the revision holding therein that without following proper procedure, as required under the law, the order of vacancy and allotment has been passed. Petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by revisional court dated 9.10.2009 has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submits that as there was a report submitted by Rent Control Inspector to the effect that it was in possession of one Mr.Rajwanshi, who was tenant and same has been vacated by him, therefore, there is a vacancy and the brothers are not living here, in such circumstances, vacancy is there and as release application is not available on record, therefore, it may be published in the newspaper and after publication in the newspaper, premises has been allotted in favour of petitioner. Further, it has been submitted that now, petitioner has purchased the property from one of the brother and has become co-owner, therefore, he is entitled to remain in possession of the property but by virtue of the order dated 9.10.2009, cancelling the order of allotment, the effect will be that petitioner will be ejected from the premises in dispute.;