The judgment established that the protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is available only against the transferor or the person claiming under him, and clarified the authority of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in declaring vacancy.

By means of this petition, moved under Article 227 read with Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 20-01-2004 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun, in case No. 54 of 1998, whereby vacancy has been declared in respect of the property No. 53-H, Ground floor, Rajpur Road, Dehradun.

2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that the petitioner was initially a tenant in the aforesaid property consisting of two rooms and a bathroom, in the ground floor, since 1991. Thereafter, an agreement for sale of the said property was allegedly entered between the petitioner Arun Kumar and respondent No.2, Ashok Kumar and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to him as earnest money on 30'" August, 2001. On said date, a receipt-cum-possession letter was issued by the respondent No.2, a copy of which is Annexure1 filed with the petition. However, respondent No.3, Km. Poornima Pathak, thereafter moved an application (copy Annexure-2 to the petition) under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for allotment of said accommodation. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer on said application, invited the report of the Rent Control Officer, who submitted his report dated 07-09-1998 (copy Annexure-3 to the petition). However, the petitioner allegas that hs possession in the property is protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and his occupation cannot be said to be an unauthorized occupation. The petitioner was admitted that the document which was executed by the respondent No.2 was impounded vide order dated 27-12-2002, as the same was not sufficiently stamped. Meanwhile, the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondent No.2, impleading respondent No.3 also, as a party therein. After considering the objection of the petitioner, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed order dated 20-01-2004 (copy Annexure-6 to the petition), whereby vacancy has been declared in respect of the property in question holding that petitioner Arun Kumar is in un-authorized occupation of the accommodation in question. The petitioner had challenged said order on the ground that his occupation was not un-authorized one as his possession is protected under Section S3A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

3. Respondent No.2 (the landlord) did not contest this petition, but respondent No.3 (applicant for allotment) has filed a counter affidavit, wherein she has stated that since the petitioner was allowed to occupy the accommodation in question as tenant by the landlord (respondent No.2) without an allotment order, as such, since 1991, the possession of the petitioner in the accommodation was an un-authorized occupation. Challenging the agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.2, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that it was neither a registered document nor a valid agreement. It is further stated that petitioner did not file any objection relating to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, nor is he entitled to said protection. However, she has admitted that a suit has been filed by the petitioner for specific performance of contract but the answering respondent has alleged that it has no effect on the question of vacancy, which has been declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (respondent No.1).

4. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is not disputed between the parties that the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (Act No. 13 of 1972) is applicable to the building In question. It is also not disputed between the parties that petitioner was inducted as tenant by respondent No.2 (landlord) in the year 1991, without any allotment order. Sec