(1.) M. Katju, J. On 18-4-1995 I heard Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and after hearing him directed that this writ petition should be put up tomorrow i. e. 19-4-1995 alongwith Writ Petition No. 5756 of 1995. I also directed Shri Ravi Kiran Jain to inform Shri V. K. Shukla, Advocate about this order in writing. Accordingly the record of this petition as well as the record of Writ Petition No. 5756 of 1995 are before me and I have Shri Jain and also Shri V. K Shukla for respondents in both these petitions.

(2.) THE allegations in this petition are that there was House No. 2/1405/2, situated at Chander Nagar, Saharanpur popularly known as Lal Kothi which was allotted to the husband of the petitioner late K. C. Govil a judicial officer vide allotment order dated 16-6-1973, a true copy of which is Annexure 1 to the petition. Late K. C. Govil with his family including his wife, 4 sons and 3 daughters continuously resided in the house in dispute and continuously paid rent to the landlord. Shri K. C. Govil died on 27-10-1990 and after his death, his widow (the petitioner) with other heirs are continuously residing in the house in dispute. During the life time of Shri K. C. Govil the landlord had refused to accept rent and hence the rent was being deposited under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 from 1-6-1989 It is alleged in para 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner was continuously living in this house in dispute and other family members were also residing with the petitioner. One son of the petitioner is a Major in the Army and is posted at Meerut about 110 kms. away from Saharanpur and normally resides with the petitioner. All the household goods of the petitioner and his sons are in the house in dispute. It is alleged in para 6 of the petition that one Yashveer Singh in collusion with respondent No. 5 moved an application for allotment of the house in dispute on the ground that the house in dispute is locked. On this application a report was called from the Rent Control Inspector who had submitted his report on 4-1-1995. It is alleged in para 8 of the petition that the petitioner was neither aware about the moving of the allotment application by Yashveer Singh nor had any notice or information about the inspection done or report submitted on 4-1-1995. It is alleged in para 9, that this report of the inspection was totally take. A true copy of the report is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It appears that on 27-1-1995 the respondent No. 5 Suraj Mal claiming himself to be the President of the District Bahujan Samaj Party, filed an application for allotment of house in dispute. In para 11 it is stated that no notice or information was received by the petitioner regarding the application by the respondent No. 5. In para 12 of the petition it is alleged that respondent No. 5, Suraj Mal who is President of the District Unit of Bahujan Samaj Party had a bad intention to grab the house in dispute for opening the District Office of his party. He as well as the leaders of the Bahujan Samaj Party put pressure on the district authorities to allot the premises and put the respondent No. 5 in possession of the house in dispute. It is alleged in para 13 that on the influence of the respondent No. 5 and the leaders of the ruling party, the respondent No. 1 initiated proceedings for allotment of the house in dispute and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 supported to the respondent No. 1 in his illegal act and subsequently the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 actively helped the respondent No. 5 in throwing the petitioner and all her goods out of the house and putting the respondent No. 5 in possession over the house in dispute. In para 14 it is alleged that a false report regarding service of notice was given alleging that notice could not be served on the petitioner due to the lock on the house in dispute. In paras 16 and 17 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner on 8-2-1995 heard that some proceeding