By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.12.1999 (copy Annexure-6 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No. 1 i.e. Additional District Magistrate (E)/Rent Control and Eviction Officer (for short RCEO), rejecting the release application of the landlord, and order dated 25.01.2000 (copy Annexure-8 to the writ petition), passed by said authority, whereby building known as Standard Hotel has been allotted to Bhupal Singh Bhakuni (respondent No. 2). A mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to handover immediate possession of House No. 166-67, Upper Floor, Standard Hotel, Mallital, Nainital.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on the record.

Facts of the Case :

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are landlords of building known as Standard Hotel, bearing Municipal Board No. 166-67 (Upper Storey), Mallital, Nainital. Previously, respondent No. 3 Joseph Menzes and his sister were tenants in said accommodation, after death of their mother (original tenant). Proceedings were initiated by Competent Officer/District Supply Officer under Section 12 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) for declaring deemed vacancy in respect of accommodation in question. And deemed vacancy was declared vide order dated 19.03.1990. Said vacancy was confirmed vide order dated 17.08.1990 (copy Annexure-1 to the writ petition) by respondent No. 1 in Case No. 51/7 of 1989-90 in respect of aforesaid accommodation. It appears that certain persons including respondent No. 2 Bhupal Singh Bhakuni sought allotment of the accommodation in their favour under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act. On the other hand, the landlord sought release of the accommodation on the ground that he has to settle his sons in the business. The previous tenant Joseph Menzes challenged the order declaring deemed vacancy before Allahabad High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 29713 of 1990, in which the landlord as well as the prospective allottee (Bhupal Singh Bhakuni) were impleaded as respondents. Allahabad High Court vide its interim order dated 10.01.1991 stayed the proceedings of allotment in pursuance to the order dated 17.08.1990 by which deemed vacancy was confirmed. However, it appears that Rent Control & Eviction Officer proceeded with the allotment proceedings and rejected the release application of the landlord vide its order dated 25.10.1990, against which a revision was preferred under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act before District Judge, Nainital, which was registered as Rent Control Revision No. 62 of 1990. The revision was allowed vide order dated 01.12.1998 (copy Annexure-5 to the writ petition) by District Judge, Nainital, who remanded the matter to RCEO for fresh decision on the release application of the landlord. The petitioners’ case is that respondent No. 1 (RCEO) in collusion with respondents No. 2 & 3 proceeded with the allotment proceedings in violation of the stay order passed by the Allahabad High Court showing false substituted service on the landlords. It is further alleged by the petitioners (landlords) that the respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 18.12.1999 (copy Annexure-6 to the writ petition) rejecting the release application of the landlords. In para 11 and 11-A of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioners had no knowledge that their release application has been rejected. The petitioners have further pleaded that without serving the petitioners with notices, respondent No. 1 vide another impugned order dated 25.01.2000 allotted the accommodation in favour of respondent No. 2 in clear violation of the interim order passed by the Allahabad High Court. It is further alleged by the petitioners that false service of notice of Form-B has been shown on the landlo