MOHD NASEEM Vs. A R O R C AND E O AGRA
LAWS(ALL)-1979-12-18
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 19,1979

MOHD. NASEEM Appellant
VERSUS
A.R.O./R.C. and E.O. Agra and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the landlord of premises no. R-7/89, Chhota Ghalibpura, Agra. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, he has challenged the validity of the allotment order dated October 26, 1976 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra. The challenge is mainly on the ground of breach of provisions contained in sub clause (2) of Rule 8 and sub-clause (3) of Rule 9 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 framed under U.P. Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).
(2.) It is the petitioner's case that one Zeeshan Husain was the tenant in the ground-floor accommodation of the aforesaid premises. He was a tenant for the last ten years and paid rent till the month of October, 1976. Zeeshan Husain colluded with Mohd. Sharif, who is respondent no. 3 to this petition and an application for allotment of the accommodation was filed by Mohd. Sharif before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra, and without any notice to the petitioner, and upon a report having been submitted by the Rent Control Inspector, allegedly based on some inspection made in absence of the petitioner, an order of allotment of the accommodation in favour of Mohd. Sharif was passed. Thereupon the petitioner filed a review before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Act. At the same time, the petitioner filed a revision against this order of allotment, which revision was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Agra by his judgment and order dated October 17, 1977. Thereupon, the petitioner filed the present petition in this Court praying for the quashing of the allotment order dated 26-10-1976 as also the order of the Additional District Judge dated October, 17, 1977. The petitioner's grievance also is that his review application still remains undecided.
(3.) Before dealing with the points arising for decision in relation to the aforementioned rules, it appears necessary to analyse the requirements thereof.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.