The court ruled that the trust in question was a private trust, rejecting claims of it being a public charitable trust, and upheld the applicability of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 53050 of 2016 and Shri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 53049 of 2016 and Shri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Udai Chandani, learned counsel appearing for respondent.

2. These two petitions, one filed by landlord being Writ Petition No. 53050 of 2016 and the other filed by tenant being Writ Petition No. 53049 of 2016 are connected to each other and are directed against the order of vacancy and consequential order of allotment passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the Designated Authority under the U.P. Urban Buildings (regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short Act No. 13 of 1972). The orders passed upon review application filed under Section 16 of Act No. 13 of 1972 and the order passed by authority in revision arising out of review- application are also under challenge. Hence both the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Briefly stated facts are that the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 came to be drawn for declaring a vacancy under Section 12 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 of which notice came to be issued to the landlord respondent on 13.05.2013 which came to be served upon landlord Puttan Lal Srivastava on 22.05.2013. The Revenue Inspector under the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer conducted spot inspection and submitted a report. The landlord Puttan Lal Srivastava is claimed to have filed his affidavit in the proceedings whereas the alleged sitting tenant Rajesh Kumar Gupta filed his objections. While Puttan Lal Srivastava in his affidavit supported the vacancy, the other petitioner Rajesh Kumar Gupta opposed the application for vacancy. The designated authority under Section 12 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 declared the vacancy qua the premises in question under its order dated 05.04.2014. After the declaration of vacancy it is claimed that since the landlord was participating in the proceedings he moved an application for nominating the contesting respondent to be an allottee. In the meanwhile Rajesh Kumar Gupta claiming to be tenant challenged the vacancy order before this Court by means of writ petition being Writ A No. 28311 of 2014 which came to be dismissed on 21.05.2014. After the dismissal of writ petition, Rajesh Kumar Gupta came to file a review petition under Section 16 (5) of Act No. 13 of 1972 which came to be dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer while passing the order of allotment in favour of the contesting respondent on 04.07.2014. After this review petition came to be dismissed Rajesh Kumar Gupta filed another review petition on 04.08.2014 which too came to be dismissed on 20.08.2014. On the very next day i.e., on 21.08.2014 petitioner Rajesh Kumar Gupta filed a review petition before this High Court in respect of the judgment and order dated 21.05.2014 passed in Writ A No. 28311 of 2014 which came to be rejected vide order dated 17.09.2014 holding that no good reason or justification was there to review the order. In the meanwhile, an affidavit came to be filed before the Executing court by landlord Puttan Lal Srivastava on 21.07.2014 taking a plea that Rajesh Kumar Gupta was there already sitting tenant in the premises in question since 2004 and, hence, there was no vacancy and that the allottee Pankaj Kumar Gupta had got the allotment order in his favour by preparing a forged document and filing the same before the Judge Small Causes (II) who was the designated authority, as Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Subsequently he moved another application of review under Section 16 (5) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 11.09.2014 in respect of vacancy order as well as allotment order. The plea taken in the review application was that it was a public trust, created by means of a