- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. This is the writ petition against the orders dated 13-3-1984 and 16-1-1985 passed by respondents No. 1 and 2 in proceedings for allotment under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to the Act for short ).
(2.) PETITIONERS are the landlord of the premises in dispute. One Hadi Hassan was the tenant of the same. PETITIONERS filed a suit (JSCC No. 2440/1971) against Hadi Hassan for arrears of rent and ejectment. This suit was decreed for arrears of rent on 25-4-1974, but was dismissed for the eject ment. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a revision, which was al lowed and the petitioners suit for eject ment was also decreed. This judgment has become final Between the parties. One Ali Hassan the grand-son of Hadi Hassan (the original tenant) filed an original suit No. 528 of 1975 for the declaration that the judgments decreed on 25-4-1974 and 15-3-1975 are fraudulent, null and void and that his grand-father colluded with the petitioners. This suit was dismissed on 19-11-1980. Ali Hassan filed a first appeal and a second appeal, which were also dismissed on 18-9-1982|and 5-12-1982. In the mean time, petitioners also filed an execution application to evict Hadi Hassan, the original tenant. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, Ali Sher (Respondents No. 3) filed an application on 22-9-1984 that the premise has been allotted in his favour on 13-3-1984; he is in possession; and the execution proceedings be dropped. It is then that the petitioner came to know about the order dated 13-3-1983. He filed a revision on 17-10-1984 against the Order dated 13-3-1984. This revision has) been dismissed on 16-11- 1985. It is against these orders that the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioners says that; they had no knowledge about the order dated 13-3-1984; no notice was served upon them before passing the impugned order; and came to know about this order only on They thereafter filed a 7-10-1984 after looking into The petitioners have also facts in paragraphs 9 to 15 of 22- 09-1984. revision on the records stated these the writ petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this writ petition in which it is alleged that notice before allotment was served upon the petitioner. Be as it may, the petitioners had already filed a suit for eviction of Ali Hassan. They had obtained a decree of eviction against him and were prosecuting their execution against him. It is only after they get possession of the premises in dispute that they were re quired to file the release application before the Rent Control and Eviction Of ficer. In case they had any notice from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, there is no reason for them not to appear before him. The order dated 13- 3-1984 is annexed as Ahnexure-2 to the writ petition. It indi cates that Hadi Hassan, the original tenant has stated before the Inspector that he wishes to vacate the premises in near fu ture. He never informed the Inspector that in the suit from the petitioners (landlord) he has already been ordered to be evicted and the execution proceedings are going on. This order has been passed in absence of material facts. Not only this order is illegal, but the order of the District Judge dated 16-1-1985 is also illegal. In the facts and circumstances of the case the delay in filing the revision ought to have been con doned. The orders dated 16-11-1985 and 13-3-1984 are illegal and are quashed. The matter is sent back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide whether the premise should be released in favour of the landlord or not? The respondent No. 3 is merely in position of a prospective allot tee. The Rent Control and Eviction Of ficer will first decide whether the property should be released in favour or the landlords or not and in case his application is dismissed, he may allot it in accordance with law. Petition allowed. .;