Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr. Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel for petitioner No. 1 and Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R.K.S. Suryavanshi, learned counsel for petitioner No. 2 and Mr. R.B. Singhal, learned counsel for opposite party No. 6.

2. The writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.3.1979 passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Lucknow in rent revision No. 150 of 1978 allowing the revision of opposite party by setting aside the orders of allotment made in favour of petitioners by A.D.M.(CS)/R.C.& E.O., Lucknow.

3. The facts narrated by the petitioners are briefly stated as under :

The description of premises in question is “Sangeet”, 509/151 Rai Bihari Lal Road, New Haidrabad, Lucknow.

4. Under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) the premises was inspected for the purpose of declaration of the vacancy by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer and it was found vacant. Therefore, he issued a notice on 1.10.1977 inviting objections regarding the declaration of vacancy. This proceeding was initiated on the basis of application for allotment moved by Dr. Suresh Chandra Yadav. Mr. Pran Nath Seth-opposite party No. 3 filed objection through which he admitted that previously it was occupied by one police officer and late Dr. C.P. Tandon had got it released for his own use and occupation. Ultimately proceeding for allotment initiated by Dr. Suresh Chandra Yadav was dropped. Thereafter, respondent No. 5-Syed Kalim Uddin occupied the entire premises as a tenant with the consent and permission of the landlord. On 28.8.1978, he vacated the entire premises. On 28.8.1978, the petitioner No. 1 applied for allotment of entire house upon which, respondent No. 2, Additional District Magistrate obtained the report of the Rent Control Inspector, who reported that the first floor of the house in question was vacant. The respondent No. 2 issued notice on 15.9.1978 inviting objections for declaration of vacancy. Respondent No. 5-Syed Kalim Uddin put in appearance on behalf of Smt. Asha Tandon-opposite party No. 4 by filing his Vakalatnama. He also filed objection stating therein that the house in question was never let out to any police officer by late Dr. C.P. Tandon, which was contrary to the statement of Shri Pran Nath Seth made through his objection dated 10.10.1977. The petitioner No. 1 filed reply of objections denying the capacity of respondent No. 5 to live in the premises as family member of Smt. Asha Tandon. By means of order dated 9.10.1978, respondent No. 2 fixed the next date i.e. 23.10.1978 for evidence. However, no evidence was filed on that date on behalf of respondent No. 4. On 23.10.1978, the respondent No. 2 declared the vacancy of the first floor as well as the ground floor of the premises.

5. One fact has also been brought out that on 8.11.1976, respondent No. 3-Pran Nath Seth sought one month’s time to obtain instructions from respondent No. 4 by appearing as counsel of opposite party No. 4 through the application, which was not supported with Vakalatnama of respondent No. 4. That application was rejected and ground floor of the premises was allotted to petitioner No. 1. The application for allotment of premises was also made by petitioner No. 2 and the first floor of the said premises was allotted to him on 10.11.1978. Thereafter, the petitioners took place the possession of the ground floor as well as first floor of the premises in question on 14.11.1978.

6. The respondent No. 5 challenged the said order through rent revision No. 139 of 1978 denying the vacancy of the house in question. The respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 also challenged the said order through different revisions.

7. Revision No. 139 of 1978 filed by opposite party No. 5 was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.3.1979 and other two revisions i.e