S.D.Agarwala, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) The dispute relates to allotment of flat No. 4/338, situate on Ansari Road, Bulandshahar. The property in dispute has been allotted in favour of the Secretary, Bhartiya Communist Party, Bulandshahar. Haji Altaf Hussain, opposite party No. 2 is the landlord of the premises. The petitioner, Narendra Kumar Garg, wants that his possession be regularised within the meaning of Section 14 of the Act. On 23-11-1977 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the flat in dispute in favour of the Secretary, Bhartiya Communist Party. The application for regularisation was rejected by him as well as the release application on behalf of the landlord Haji Altaf Hussain. Haji Altaf Hussain did not file any revision against the said order but Narendra Kumar Garg filed a revision before the District Judge, Bulandshahar. The revision came up for hearing before the Vth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar. who by his order dated 21st August, 1978 dismissed it. The revisional authority has recorded a finding that the petitioner was not a licensee or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord and as such his occupation cannot be regularised under Section 14 of the Act. After recording this finding the revisional court further found that the order declaring the vacancy was a valid order and thereafter the allotment order in favour of the Secretary, Bhartiya Communist Party was found to be valid.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on three grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the Secretary, Bhartiya Communist Party, in whose favour the allotment has been made, is not a person within the meaning of Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act and as such no allotment can be made in the said name. Secondly, that the allotment could be made only for residential or business purposes and not for any political purposes, viz., for carrying on activities relating to politics. Thirdly, it was submitted that the petitioner having been found in possession prior to and after 5th July, 1979 it should have been presumed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that his possession was with the consent of the landlord.;