Murlidharh, J. - (1.)This is a landlady's petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution directed against the order of the District Judge as a revisional authority by which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer's order dated 15-4-1976 rejecting the release application of the petitioner and allotting the premises in question to Babu Singh Chauhan, respondent no. 3 was confirmed.
(2.)The brief relevant facts are these : The disputed premises are a part of the petitioner's house 'Veer Kuti' situate in the town of Bijnor. This portion consists of 4 rooms. There is no dispute that a portion consisting of two rooms in the same house has been in possession of the landlady. The entrance, courtyard and latrine for the two portions are said to be joint. The landlady's husband was in Government service at Lucknow and he died in 1972. At that time one Thaplyal occupied the disputed portion as a tenant. Since 1974 when Thaplyal vacated this portion litigation about its allotment has been going on. It is unnecessary to detail the course of this litigation except that at one stage the District Judge per his appellate order dated 27-1-1976 had quashed the allotment order dated 1-6-1974 passed in favour of respondent no. 3 observing that the disputed accommodation was a portion of the house in which the landlady was living and hence the allotment order was vitiated on account of non-compliance of Sec. 17 (2) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act). In the subsequent proceedings it appears that on 6-4-1976 a notice was served by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the petitioner's counsel asking her to nominate a person for allotment by 7-4-1976, the date fixed in the case being 8-4-1976. The counsel that very day i.e., 6-4-1976 made an application stating that the landlady was at Meerut and notice be sent to her at that address. Thereafter the release application was moved on 7-5-1976. The Prescribed Authority rejected the release application with the finding that the 2 rooms in occupation of the landlady contained some goods belonging to her but she had not been residing there and since the death of her husband in 1972 she had been living with her Chartered Accountant son at Meerut or another Junior Engineer son formerly posted at Moradabad. The Rent Control Officer also noted that the plea for release had been belatedly raised in April 1976, the earlier case having been no more than that allotment should be made in favour of her nominee. The Rent Control Officer also noted that in view of the fact that the landlady had not been residing in the portion in her possession and the same was lying locked for a long time and he had already given notice to her to nominate a person for allotment on 6-4-1976 it was not necessary to wait any further before making an allotment of the premises. The District Judge in an appeal which was treated as a revision under the transitory provision of U.P. Act 28 of 1976 confirmed these findings ditoing the reasoning on the question of release. As regards the allotment in favour of respondent no. 3 he did not refer to or discuss Sec. 17 (2) of the Act. He, however, observed that the petitioner only used to store her belongings in her portion and that during the life time of her husband there was no occasion for her to live in this portion permanently and she had kept it locked for storing her belongings. Also that it appears that these rooms had been kept locked for being used occasionally as and when any member of the landlady's family visited Bijnor. After these observations the District Judge went on to conclude that no illegality could be found in the order of allotment in favour of Babu Singh Chauhan respondent no. 3. These findings have been challenged by this writ petition.
(3.)The landlady's claim for release of the disputed portion has no merit. The facts and findings recited above clearly show that she in her widowed life was staying with her sons in other towns and never came and lived even in the portion in her occupation. No case was made out for release of additional accommodation of the disputed portion and no error can be found with this part of the order.