Pradeep Kant, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of an order passed by the IInd Special Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi allowing the revision preferred by the landlords against the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Hardoi/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi. Relevant facts involved in the present controversy are that the opposite parties 2 and 3 are the landlords of house No. 397/2, new No. 192 situate in Mohalla Boarding House, Dharamshala Road, Hardoi. It is not in dispute that the original owner and landlord of the house in question was one Prabhu Dayal Gupta of whom the opposite parties 2 and 3 are the legal heirs and successors and Prabhu Dayal Gupta had died. On 9.6.97 one Awadhesh Pandey and on 10.6.97 one Shyam Prakash and Rakesh Behari Srivastava moved an application for allotment of the portion of the said house and the same was allotted in favour of Shyam Prakash the present petitioner on 3.7.97. The landlords filed a revision before the learned District Judge which came up for hearing before the II Special Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi who vide his order dated 3.12.97 allowed the same and while remanding the matter to the trial court also directed that the possession of the premises in question be re -delivered to the landlords and if necessary police force may be provided. Aggrieved by this order the present petition has been filed and an interim order was also passed in favour of the petitioner and as such the petitioner still continues in possession over the premises in question.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the findings recorded by the Revisional Court are contrary to record as the petitioner was a lawful allottee of the premises in question having been allotted to him by the Competent Authority on 3.7.97 and he having taken over the possession in pursuance of allotment order could not be directed to be evicted from the premises and the view taken by, the learned Revisional Court is palpably erroneous. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this is a case in which all the rules, regulations and norms were thrown to winds for accommodating the petitioner who happened to be the member of the Legislative Assembly. It has been found by the Revisional Court on the basis of evidence on record that the provisions of Rule 8 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 and provisions of Section 28 of the Act and also Rule 10 of the rules framed under the Act have not been followed at all. Learned Revisional Court has recorded a finding that no notice was given to the landlords for hearing before passing of allotment order nor the inspection was made in the presence of the landlords and after notice to them which is the basic requirement, if a vacancy is declared under Section 12 of the Act. The rules also provide that after inspection, the report has to be pasted and after three days an order of allotment can be passed and in case any objection is filed during this period, the same has to be disposed of first. In the instant case, on the applications of Rakesh Behari Srivastava, Awadhesh Pandey and Shyam Prakash report of the Inspector was called for by the trial Court who submitted his report on 18.6.97. The Inspector reported that the premises in question falls in the category of vacant premises and in this report it was also mentioned that after making all efforts the Inspector has not been able to find any written proof or statement in this regard. The Inspector further reported that he could not know about the ownership of the premises in question. It was also mentioned that in one portion of the house in question wife of Prabhu Dayal Gupta and his son were residing and other portion was in the tenancy of one Dr. J.K. Verma, who had vacated the said premises two months before. On the report submitted by the Inspector it is alleged that notice was issued, but the notice was actually issued on 26.6.97 fixing 30.6.97 for filing written statement. The Tahsildar, Hardoi was directed to affect service of notice. The notice was handed over to the process server on 30.6.97 at 12 O'clock and on that very date the process server submitted a report of "refusal". On that very date i.e. 30.6.97 the premises in question was declared as vacant and time was given to file applications upto 3.7.1997. This notice was directed to be pasted on the notice board along with notification of vacancy. On 3.7.97 itself an order of allotment of the premises in question was passed in favour of Shyam Prakash holding that he was in need for allotment of the house. The allotment order was issued on that very date i.e. 3.7.97.
(3.) THE learned Revisional Court also found that there was an earlier litigation with respect to the premises in question in which the premises stood released in favour of the landlords under Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 by virtue of a compromise. This fact was also not considered by the trial court.;