- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. There are two questions involved in this petition; firstly as to what is the rate of rent in regard to premises in question and; secondly, in ab sence of payment of rent whether the allot ment order can be cancelled under Section 16 (9) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short referred to as the Act ).
(2.) THE disputed premises has declared as vacant by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 2-9-1985. On 6-11-1985, the premises in question was allotted in favour of respondent No. 2 fixing Rs. 125/- per month as presumptive rent as provided under Section 16 (9) of the Act. On 15-11-1985, the allotment order on Form 'b' was issued by the office but before it could be served upon the party, respon dent No. 2 moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer with the allegation that the rent of Rs. 125/- per month is excessive. It maybe fixed at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month or the rent which was being paid by the outgoing tenant. It is alleged that same date, respon dent No. 1 without 'any notice to the petitioner reduced the presumptive rent and fixed Rs. 251- per month. On 4-11- 1986, the petitioner filed an application under Section 16 (9) (b) of the Act with the averments that the premises in question was allotted in favour of respondent No. 2 and he has obtained possession also but he neither paid nor tendered any rent within the time as specified in the aforesaid sec tion hence the allotment order be res cinded. Respondent No. 2 contested the application and filed counter-affidavit. She alleged that she had paid Rs. 1000/- to the petitioner on 30-4-1983 as advance rent. This was controverted by the petitioner. On 20-7-1987 an application was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 stating that the allotment order on Form 'b' was not available on record and as such the office may be directed to issue it and only thereafter the application under Sec tion 16 (9) (b) may be considered. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 4-8-1987 directed to issue the allotment order in Form 'b' afresh. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had also fixed rent at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month while passing the allot ment order; As regard fixing of rent of Rs. 125/- per month the order has not been set aside. The rent of the premises remained at Rs. 125/- per month. As regards the sub mission of the petitioner that allotment order be rescinded, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer recorded finding that the Form 'b' was not available on the record and, therefore, he directed to issue fresh Form 'b' and in such circumstances, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not rescind the order. I do not find any manifest illegality in this finding. In view of the above, the writ peti tion is partly allowed. The rent of the premises in question will remain at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month instead of Rs. 251- per month and the allotment order shall remain operative. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition partly allowed. .;