Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) The bungalow No. 49-A, Taj Road, Agra which consists of five garages, hall, six small stores, open space and a big tin shed, is the subject matter of the present writ petition. It was let out to M/s. Nav Bharat Automobiles whose partners were Rai Amar Nath and Sri Ram Kishore Bansal. Shri Munni Lal Mehra, the respondent No. 2 herein who has died, was the owner and the landlord of the said property. Rai Amar Nath had one son namely Suresh Chandra Agrawal who predeceased him on 16.9.1999 leaving behind his widow and two minor children. It appears that on 20.10.1989, Shri Munni Lal Mehra agreed to sell the said property to Mahavir Prasad Jain. Armed with the agreement to sell, an application for declaration of vacancy under Section 16 (1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed within 4 days of the agreement i.e. 24.10.1989. Munni Lal Mehra, it is alleged, was in collusion with the applicant for allotment, gave an affidavit that he has no objection if the accommodation in dispute is allotted to Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain. One Laxmi Narain Mittal who claims himself as certified guardian of minor son and daughter of deceased Suresh Chandra Agrawal also gave no objection certificate that the accommodation in question may be allotted in favour of Mahavir Prasad Jain. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 9.11.1989 allotted the accommodation to Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain vide Annexure Np. 6 to the writ petition. Thereafter, Shri Mahavir Prasad Jain took the possession of the disputed accommodation by breaking the locks on 15.11.1989. The petitioner who is the daughter of Rai Amar Nath and was in possession of the disputed property, thus, came to know about the allotment proceedings and she filed an application as provided for, for reviewing the allotment order under Section 16 (5) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). She was also advised to file a revision before the Court below. It was registered as Civil Revision No. 14 of 1989. The said revision was initially allowed by the order dated 17.2.2004 ex parte. The said order was recalled on the application filed by the respondent No. 1 herein and it was reheard and has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 5.10.2004. Challenging the order dated 5.10.2004, dismissing the revision and the order dated 9.11.1989, allotment order in favour of the respondent No. 1, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) Shri A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the entire proceedings leading to the declaration of vacancy and allotment are null and void as no notice was ever issued to the petitioner. Even, it was found by the Rent Control Inspector that the petitioner is in occupation of the disputed accommodation as tenant and steps were not taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to issue a notice to her. It was further submitted that Laxmi Narain Mittal was never appointed as guardian of the minor sons i.e. respondent No. 4 and 5. Elaborating the argument, he submits that the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed with heavy cost. He further submits that, as a matter of fact, the vacancy was never notified. It was also pointed out that the respondent No. 1 has entered into possession like a storm without recourse to the legal proceedings as provided for under the Act. In other words, form C' and D' were not got issued. The petitioner has been thrown out from the accommodation in dispute in the utter violation of law and it is a clear case of house grabbing.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had surrendered her tenancy right and therefore, there was a vacancy and no interference is called for in the present case.;