Sudhir Agarwal, J.:—

1. Heard Sri Om Prakash, Advocate holding brief of Sri B.D. Mandhayn, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri M.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.10.1997 passed by XIIth Additional District Judge, Agra setting aside order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") dated 06.07.1994 allotting the accommodation in question to the petitioner.

3. The dispute relates to shop No.16/1/90 (old no.16/1) situated in Subhash Bazar, Agra. It is not disputed that the aforesaid shop is owned by Sri Narain Das Kagaz Wale Dharmarath Trust (respondent No.7), managed by Dr. Harish Chandra Jain.

4. The petitioner Haji Mohammad Rashid (since deceased and substituted by his legal heirs/representatives i.e. petitioner No.1/1 to 1/10) made an application on 2nd June, 1994 requesting for allotment of shop in question alleging that it was under the tenancy of Sukesh Kumar and Sushil Dixit, sons of late Sri Salig Ram Sharma, and they are going to vacate the premises and it may be allotted to the petitioner. An inspection was made on 13th June, 1994 whereafter the alleged tenants namely Sukesh Kumar and Sushil Dixit filed an affidavit on 1st July, 1994 stating that they are going to vacate the premises very shortly. Another affidavit was filed by Dr. Harish Chandra Jain, Manager of landlord trust giving his consent for allotment of shop in question in favour of petitioner. Thereafter RCEO passed order dated 6th July, 1994 allotting the shop in dispute to the petitioner.

5. Respondents No.3 to 6, sons of Sri Hari Shankar Sharma, filed RCC Revision No.2 of 1996 and it is this revision which has been allowed by XIIth District Judge, Agra holding that neither procedure prescribed in Rule 8(2) nor 9(3) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1972") has been followed. The conduct of Rent Control Inspector (hereinafter referred to as "RCI") is highly suspicious and the parties namely prospective allottee and the alleged owners have also not acted honestly which all justify an inference of collusion between the applicant, allottee and Rent Control Authorities namely the RCI. It is thus evident that allotment order is nothing but a result of fraud and misrepresentation. Accordingly, he had set aside allotment order dated 6.7.1994 and directed RCEO to hear Revisionists and other concerned parties and thereafter decide applicant-allottee's application again.

6. It is contended before this Court that since charitable and public religious institutions are exempted from operation of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") in view of Section 2(1)(bb) of Act, 1972, therefore the impugned revisional order is patently illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also contended that rent of shop is more than Rs.2000/- and therefore under Section 2(g) of Act, 1972, the provisions of Act, 1972 are not applicable to the shop in question. Further it is contended that all the concerned parties are/were duly informed and notices were issued. There was no contravention of any provision and the Revisional Court has illegally held that Rules 8 and 9 of Rules, 1972 were not complied. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that respondents no.3 to 6 had no locus standi or authority to file revision and therefore, also it was bad in law and liable to be dismissed.

7. On the contrary Sri Pankaj Agarwal, holding brief of Sri M. K.Gupta, Advocate contended that in a collusive and illegal manner petitioner obtained allotment order and the same has rightly been set aside by Revisonal Court.

8. From the pleadings and documents available on record certain events which are evident and would be relevant for deciding this m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document