JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the allottee. Building in dispute was declared vacant on 3.3.1983 on the application of the petitioner. Thereafter it was allotted to the petitioner on 9.5.1983. Possession was also delivered to the petitioner through Police force on 3.6.1983.
2. Petitioner had alleged that one Jagdish Lal was the tenant of the premises in dispute who had vacated the same. Notice issued to the landlord was served upon one Bhaskaran who was alleged by the petitioner to be caretaker of the building in dispute on behalf of landlady respondent No. 3 Smt. Nand Rani.
3. Landlady respondent No. 3 on 10.6.1983 filed an application before R.C. and E.O./Local Magistrate, Hardwar, district Saharanpur for review of the allotment order which was registered as Case No. 56 of 1983. R.C. and E.O. on 21.8.1984, allowed the review application of the landlady holding that Jagdish Lal was never the tenant of the house in dispute and that Bhaskaran was not the caretaker of the landlady, hence service of notice upon him was of no value. R.C. and E.O. held that Rule 8(2) of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 had been violated inasmuch as no notice was served upon the landlady to either before inspection or before declaration of vacancy or before allotment or before delivery of possession. Thereafter landlady applied for possession of the house in dispute. R.C. and E.O. on 29.3.1985, allowed the said application and directed delivery of possession to the landlady. Against the aforesaid orders a revision was filed by the petitioner being R.C. Revision No. 76 of 1985. The said revision was dismissed in default. Petitioner filed restoration application " which was registered as Misc. Case No. 55 of 1981. Ist A.D.J. Saharanpur on 7.3.1986 rejected the restoration application, hence this writ petition.
4. In this writ petition orders of R.C. and E.O. dated 21.8.1984 and 29.3.1985 as well as the order of Ist A.D.J. before 7.3.1986 have been challenged. Revisional court while rejecting the restoration application has given cogent reasons. However, even if it is assumed that restoration application was wrongly rejected the matter does not deserve to be remanded to the revisional court for decision on merit for the following reasons.
5. In the writ petition the orders passed by R.C. and E.O. which were challenged before revisional court have also been challenged. Ground Nos. 8 to 14 relate to invalidity of orders passed by R.C. and E.O. This Court can, therefore, judge the validity of the orders passed by the R.C. and E.O. Supreme Court has also held in R.E.V. Gounder v. V.V.V. Tample and R.C. Kesharwani v. Dwarika Prasad 2002 (2) ARC 298 (SC), that when the matter is pending for long remand must be avoided. In the instant case, the matter is more than 20 years old. Supreme Court in its authority in Shail v. Manoj Kumar 2004 ACJ 1213 placing reliance upon Surya Deo Rai v. R.C. Rai , has held that in exercise of writ jurisdiction High Court has the jurisdiction also to pass itself such a decision or direction as inferior Court or Tribunal should have done.
6. As far as merit of the orders passed by R.C. and E.O. is concerned, absolutely no fault can be found in the said orders. There was nothing on the record to show that Bhaskaran was caretaker of the landlady. It appears that Bhaskaran was some close associate of the petitioner. Even otherwise under Rule 8 of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which deals with service of notice, it has been provided that notice can be served by giving it to the person concerned or to counsel or any adult member of this family or by leaving it at his last known place or by affixation. Under the said rule it has not been provided that notice can be served upon caretaker. Even under Order III, Rule (2), C.P.C. service of notice is permissible upon recognized agents who shall be power of attorney holders on behalf of person concerned authorizing them to accept notices. In this manner it is quite clear that not only no notice was served upon the landlady but petitioner played fraud upon the Court by getting the notice served upon alleged caretaker. The R.C.& E.O. rightly held that Rule 8(2) of the Rules requiring service of notice is mandatory and its violation renders the vacancy declaration order as well as allotment order null and void. The Supreme Court has taken this view in several authorities including that of Yogendra Tiwari v. District Judge . I have considered the said authority along with other authorities of the Supreme Court in R.L. Poddar v. A.D.J. 2003 (2) ARC 629 and C.K. Nagarkar v. A.D.J. 2004 (2) ARC 349.
7. As far as the order directing delivery of possession to the landlord is concerned, the same is in accordance with Section 18 (3) of the Act.
8. Accordingly it is held that orders passed by R.C. and E.O. are also perfectly in accordance with law requiring absolutely no interference.
9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
10. This is a case of house grabbing. Petitioner by getting the house illegally allotted actually grabbed the same. Nothing has been brought on record regarding payment of any rent by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 landlady. It is not clear as to whether any rent was fixed under allotment order pr not. Accordingly petitioner is directed to pay damages for use and occupation to respondent No. 3 at the rate of Rs. 500 per month from the date of possession, i.e., 3.6.1983 till actual vacation of the house. This amount may be recovered through execution before J.S.C.C. concerned under Rule 24(3) of the Rules. For the said purpose certified copy of this judgment shall be treated to be a certificate of recovery in Form G in terms of Rule 24(2) of the Rules. R.C. and E.O. shall immediately deliver possession of the property in dispute to landlady respondent No. 3.
11. Writ petition is dismissed with Rs. 5,000 as cost.