RAM PRAKASH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF UP AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-1967-5-31
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 11,1967

RAM PRAKASH Appellant
VERSUS
Government Of Up And Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SURAJ NARAIN V/S. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED ISHAQ S O ALLAH RAKHA VS. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER SAHARANPUR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - (1.)This petition is directed against an order of the State Government setting aside an order of allotment passed in Petitioner's favour and allotting the premises in dispute to Sri Ram Chandra, Respondent No. 3.
(2.)Shop No. 10/252 in Mohalla Moviganj Bazar, Badaun, fell vacant in the month of February, 1962. The Petitioner made an application for its allotment. The application bore the endorsement of consent of one Lata Duli Chand, who was stated to be one of the co -owners of the shop. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Badaun, on 14 -2 -1962, allotted the shop in favour of the Petitioner. On 16 -2 -1962 the Petitioner took possession and intimated the officer of that fact. On 17 -2 -1962 Smt. Aqila Bano, who was one of the co -owners, made an application for cancellation of the allotment order on the ground that the facts regarding ownership of the shop have not been correctly reported. The same day the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order stating that from the representation received from Sri Hnjee alias Husain, Mukhtar of Smt. Aqila Bano, it appears that the facts regarding ownership etc. have not been correctly reported by the parties. In view of the fact that the allotment order has evidently been obtained by misrepresentation of the facts, the same is hereby cancelled pending further enquiries. The objection of Smt. Aqila Bano was enquired into. It appears that a suit for preemption of the shares purchased by Lala Duli Chand was filed because of which this enquiry was delayed. It is alleged that on 16 -9 -1962, the third Respondent made an application for the allotment of the shop. On 2 -2 -1965, Smt. Aqila Bano executed a rent note in favour of the Petitioner and accepted rent from him. Ultimately on 23 -3 -1965 the officer passed an order regularising the possession of the Petitioner with effect from the date of his original possession. In this order he stated that he had considered the needs of the various Applicants for the shop and had also heard the landlords. The need of Sri Ram Prakash (the Petitioner) appeared to be more genuine than others. He directed that an allotment order be issued to the Petitioner. It is significant that in this order the objections of Smt. Aqila Bano were not mentioned, obviously because Smt. Aqila Bano had by then executed the rent note in favour to the Petitioner and had lost interest in them. None of the other parties also seem to have pressed for a finding on the objections of Smt. Aqila Bano. That matter seems to have become dead.
(3.)Thereafter the third Respondent filed an application Under Sec. 7 -F to the State Government. In the revision the Respondent's case was that his need was more essential than that of the Petitioner and that the accommodation should have been allotted to him. The Petitioner filed an objection whereafter the third Respondent filed a rejoinder, copy whereof is Annexure 'B' to the counter -affidavit. In this rejoinder absolute a new case was taken up that the original allotment order was obtained by the Petitioner by collusion with some staff of the Rent Control Office. Very many details of these charges were mentioned. It was also stated there for the first time, that the third Respondent had also made an application on 14 -2 -1962, but the staff of the Rent Control Office did not bring that application to the notice of the Rent Control Officer when he passed the original order of allotment on 14 -2 -1962. It has not been stated by anybody that this rejoinder was brought to the notice of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has in his rejoinder affidavit clearly stated that he never received any copy of this rejoinder. On 20 -9 -966 the State Government passed the impugned order stating that it had examined the version of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice it considered it necessary that the allotment order dated 23 -3 -1965 be cancelled and the shop be allotted to the third Respondent.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.