- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. This is the landlord's writ petition against the order dated 22-3-19931 holding that there is no vacancy in the premises in dispute.
(2.) IT is admitted case of the parties that one Smt. Kalawati was the tenant of the shop in question. One Sri Naresh Kumar filed an application that Smt. Kalawati is no more and the shop in ques tion is vacant and it should be allotted to him. On his application, inspector's report was called for. One Sri Ravi Shankar is in possession. He claims himself to be grand son of Smt. Kalawati. Before the Inspector the landlord stated that Sri Ravi Shankar is not the grand-son of Smt. Kalawati. The landlord subsequently also filed an ap plication for the release of the premises in dispute. After receipt of the report another report was also called for. The case was listed on 22-3-1993. On that date Sri Ravi Shankar filed an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority and has also filed documents. This is mentioned in para-8 and para-19 of the writ petition. The landlord requested for time to file docu ments in rebuttal. This was rejected. The decision on that day was given on the basis of the documents filed by Sri Ravi Shankar that he is grand-son of Sim. Kalawati and there is no vacancy in the premises in dis pute. It is not disputed that the im pugned order has been passed on the basis of the affidavit and documents filed by Sri Ravi Shankar on the date itself and no opportunity has been given to the landlord-petitioner to rebut the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Court below ought to have granted time to the landlord to file his evidence and document. The Court below has committed illegality in not doing so.
(3.) SRI K. L. Grover, counsel for the respondents says that as there is no decla ration of vacancy, the writ petition is not maintainable. The landlord in the present case has filed an application for the release of the premises in dispute. The effect of the order dated 22-3-1993 is that applications of the landlord is indirectly rejected; though there is no specific order. The landlord is aggrieved and the writ petition is maintainable. SRI K. L. Grover further states that landlord should have filed revision against the order. The counter and rejoinder affidavits have been ex changed. The order does not specifically reject the application for the release, it is against ihe principle of natural justice. It is also doubtful if revision is maintainable. In view of the same it is not proper to relegate the petitioner to file revision. The writ petition is allowed with costs. Since the matter is old one and it is being sent back again, it may be decided at an early date. Petition allowed. .;