JUDGMENT
Vikram Nath, J.
1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.4.1987 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr whereby he has decreed the suit of respondent No. 4 for relief of token damages and for a direction to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (defendant No. 1 in the suit) to allot the premises in dispute to any needy person. The petition is further directed against the order dated 19.8.1987 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, whereby pursuant to the direction issued by the Civil Judge, referred to above, he has declared vacancy in the premises in dispute.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is the landlord of House No. 268 (new No. 226) Pattharwali Gali, Deputy Ganj, Bulandshahr. In proceedings under Section 16 (1) of UP. Act No. XIII of 1972 Rent Control and Eviction Officer, vide judgment dated 1.2.1979 (Annexure-6 to the petition) released the premises in favour of the landlord after rejecting the application for allotment filed by respondent No. 4 Daya Nand Swarup. Against the said order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer; Daya Nand Swarup filed Rent Control Revision No. 19 of 1979. The said revision was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.7.1979 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr (Annexure-7 to the petition), The proceedings under Section 16 of the Act became final and the judgment of the Revisional Court dated 30.7.1979 became final. Shri Daya Nand Swarup thereafter filed Suit No. 310 of 1986 in the Court of Munsif Bulandshahr against the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bulandshahr and the State of UP. claiming relief of token damages and also for a direction that the premises in dispute may be allotted to some needy person. The said suit even though was not maintainable was decreed vide judgment dated 25.4.1987 for token damages of Rs. 10/- and also direction to the defendant No. 1 Rent Control and Eviction Officer, to allot the premises in dispute to some needy person (Annexure-2 to the petition). Thereafter, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, under threat of criminal contempt being initiated against him vide order dated 19.8.1987 declared the vacancy in the premises pursuant to the decree of the Civil Court dated 25.4.1987. It is these two orders which have been challenged before this Court in the present writ petition.
3. I have herd Shri Om Prakash, Advocate holding brief of Shri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
4. Counsel for the respondent No. 4 did not appear even in the revised list when matter was taken up.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 having utterly failed in the proceedings of allotment before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, and also before the Revisional Court in the year, 1979, only in order to harass the landlord petitioner filed the suit which was not even maintainable. It is further contended that respondent No. 4 is taking advantage of the fact that he is an Advocate. As will also be apparent from perusal of the plaint (filed as Annexure-1) in which the plaintiff has been described as Daya Nand Swarup Advocate Notary Public, Bulandshahr. In the suit the landlord was not even impleaded as defendant. The suit was decreed ex-pane. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, did not take any action on the direction in as much as the premises had been released in favour of the landlord in 1979 and revision against the same had been dismissed. Respondent No. 4 thereafter filed an application before the Civil Judge for initiating proceedings of criminal contempt against the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The said application dated 22.5.1987 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It appears that under duress and threat of criminal contempt proceedings likely to be initiated the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, passed the impugned order dated 19.8.1987 declaring vacancy without assigning any reason. The order was non speaking and without application of mind. It was passed only on the ground that directions had been issued by the Civil Court.
6. The contention is that the suit itself was not maintainable in respect of any relief which could have been granted under the provisions of the Act and in any case once the release proceedings having become final there was no justification for the suit to be entertained at all. The direction issued by the Civil Court was contrary to the provisions of law and cannot be sustained. Consequently the order declaring the vacancy also becomes illegal. There can be no different opinion. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and orders dated 25.4.1987 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-2 to the petition) and the order dated 19.8.1987 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-4 to the petition) are set aside.