1. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent no. 1 and Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Saurabh Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6.
2. Writ petition is directed against the order 13.7.1999 (Annexure 31 to writ petition) passed by 7th Addl. District Judge, Moradabad allowing revision of respondent no. 1 and remanding the matter to Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") by setting aside his order dated 27.4.1998 whereby after declaring the premises in question vacant, he has allotted the same to Sri Neeraj Kumar Agarwal, i.e. petitioner in this writ petition.
3. The facts which appears to be admitted are that the shop no. 18/2 at Mishra Building, Station Road, Moradabad is owned by respondents no. 4 , 5 and 6 and it was allotted to one Sri Raj Kumar Batra, son of Mangat Ram in 1975. The tenant claimed to have informed District Magistrate that he is likely to vacate the premises in near future whereupon he (the District Magistrate) declared the vacancy at premises in question on 20.3.1998 and thereafter allotted the same to petitioner by order dated 27.4.1998. Out of three landlords, one is said to have been informed about the aforesaid declaration of vacancy and allotment only on 28.4.1998 who made the endorsement while receiving the information that the outgoing tenant Sri Raj Kumar Batra never informed him that he is going to vacate the premises in question and neither before declaration of vacancy any notice was given to landlords nor before allotment, option and choice of landlords for tenant was obtained. It is specifically said that besides the violation of procedure prescribed and provisions contained in Section 15 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") there was a complete breach of procedure prescribed in Rules 8 and 9 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "1972 Rules") and therefore the order passed by RCEO is wholly illegal and liable to be set aside.
4. Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, stated that the outgoing tenant had given an information to Collector that he is likely to vacate the premises and letter of outgoing tenant, he refers to, is Annexure 6 to writ petition which is dated 27.3.1998.
5. It is interesting to notice that the vacancy was declared by District Magistrate on 20.3.1998 while the alleged communication of outgoing tenant relied by petitioner is dated 27.3.1998. There is nothing on record to show that the information in prescribed form was given to District Magistrate and the requirement of Rule 9 of 1972 Rules was complied with.
6. Besides the landlord at no point of time came into picture till the allotment was made to petitioner. The outgoing tenant, it appears, on his own and on communication of orders passed by RCEO handed over possession directly to petitioner. Whether these transactions show any collusion between outgoing tenant and petitioner are not to be examined at this stage since the matter has been remanded to RCEO and it would not be appropriate to record any finding at this stage else it shall prejudice the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. However, I may refer to only one decision of this Court in Shankar Singh Vs. Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others 2005 (61) ALR 492 wherein this Court after referring to Rule 8 (2) of 1972 Rules has noticed certain illegalities committed by RCEO, which fully apply to the present case also, as under:
"1. No notice before inspection under Rule 8 (2) was served upon landlord.
2. No notice before declaring the vacancy was served upon landlord.
3. No notice before allotment and after declaration of vacancy was served upon landlord.
4. No rent was fixed in the allotment order.
5. Outgoing tenant did not intimate his intention to vacate to the landlord.
6. No inquiry whether building had actually fallen vacant or not after passing allotment order was held by R.C. & E.O. as required by Rule 14.
7. Possession was not handed over by out going tenant to the landlord. It was illegally taken directly by the allottee from the out going tenant."
7. In referring to above illegalities and recording finding that even a single violation of above would vitiate the allotment order, the Court relied on and referred to earlier decisions of this Court in R.L. Poddar Vs. A.D.J. 2003 (53) ALR 729, Ram Sumer Vs. A.D.J. 2004 (54) ALR 623, C. K. Nagarkar Vs. A.D.J. 2004 (2) ARC 349 and Kusum Lata Yadav Vs. A.D.J. 2005 (58) ALR 198.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner could neither distinguish the above decisions nor make any argument to substantiate his plea so as to pursue this Court to take a different view.
9. In view of above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed.
10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt. 9.7.2012 PS