Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amitabh Agrawal, Advocate for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 35118 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “First Petition”); Sri Shamim Ahmad, Advocate for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 47924 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Second Petition”); and, Sri Atul Dayal, Advocate of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 42865 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Third Petition”). Sri Kshitij Shailendra, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1 (the main contesting respondent) in all the writ petitions.

2. The dispute relates to shop No. 20, which is a two their shop having one Chabutara in its front. It forms part of a building known as Mishra Building, bearing Municipal No. 7/16/5 situate at Station Road, Moradabad.

3. The petitioner, in First Petition, claims to be the landlord of building in dispute. It was in the tenancy of Nagar Nigam, Moradabad, running Octroi office and after abolition of Octroi, for other administrative works. Sri Vikram Malhotra, husband of respondent No. 1 and some others moved allotment application claiming that disputed accommodation is vacant but those applications were rejected by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the “RCEO”) on 5.4.1999 mentioning that Nagar Nigam, Moradabad, the sitting tenant in the accommodation in dispute, have stake their claim stating that they are continuously occupying disputed accommodation and it is in their tenancy, hence there is no vacancy.

4. After sometime respondent No. 1 herself moved an application dated 26.4.2002 seeking allotment of aforesaid shop. She claimed that shop is lying vacant and also mentioned the name of landlord as that of petitioner, namely, Jai Kumar Mishra and two others, i.e., Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra and Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra.

5. The aforesaid application was registered on 28.4.2002 and Rent Control Inspector was directed to submit report which was submitted on 24.5.2002 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). Though inspection was made without any notice to petitioner-landlord but after getting knowledge of said proceedings, he filed objections thereto. The RCEO vide order dated 14.8.2002 declared vacancy, whereagainst again petitioner filed objection dated 19.8.2002 but the same was rejected vide order dated 28.8.2002 and disputed accommodation was allotted to respondent No. 1 vide allotment order dated 10.2.2004. The petitioner, two prospective allottes and Nagar Nigam, all filed revisions. The Special Judge, E.C. Act, Moradabad took up all the four revisions together and vide order dated 30.3.2005 rejected the same.

6. A counter-affidavit has been filed in First Petition by respondent No. 1 wherein she has admitted to have submitted allotment application dated on 26.4.2002. According to her the said that said application was received by RCEO on 26.4.2002 and not on 28.4.2002. She further said that notice was issued to petitioner on 4.7.2000, whereagainst he filed objection on 20.10.2000. She also stated the date of report submitted by Rent Control Inspector being 24.5.2000 and filed copies of aforesaid three documents as Annexures CA-5, 6 and 7 to the counter-affidavit. The case number registered before RCEO is mentioned as 09/2000. It is said that disputed shop was vacated by Nagar Nigam and the orders passed by RCEO are valid and in accordance with law. It is really strange as to how an application filed in April, 2002 can be registered in 2002 and inspection report and petitioner’s objection can be obtained in May 2000 and October, 2000.

7. Writ Petitions No. 47924 of 2005 and 42865 of 2005 have been filed by two prospective allottees/applicants, namely, Shankar Sharma son of Late Triloki Nath Sharma and Narendra Kumar son Sri Rohtash Kumar, who are seeking allotment of shop in dispute in their favour. Both have challenged allotment order dated 10.2.2004 as also the revisional order dat