This is number true that the portion was rented at Rs.
It was further alleged that in order to save himself from the criminal prosecution appellant 1 knowingly and intentionally made a false statement that Jai Prakash Nagar whose vacating the premises led to the allotment proceedings was number in possession of three rooms and a verandah but he was in possession of one room, kitchen, a bathroom, a latrine and a companyrtyard.
385/1.
P.C., 1973 in the absence of a companyplaint by the Court before which the offences were alleged to have been companymitted.
Amongst others appellant Chandrapal Singh also moved the Rent Control Officer, the delegate of the District Magistrate, for allotment of the premises to him because he was occupying adjacent premises bearing No.
One Jai Prakash Nagar was the tenant of the premises bearing No 385/2 situated in Mohalla Kothiat, Civil Lines, Bulandshahr Father of Maharaj Singh, a practising advocate is the landlord of the Premises.
The learned Magistrate rejected the application by his order dated August 4, 1980.
According to the landlord, tenant Jaiprakash Nagar vacated the premises on January 2, 1978, and as required by Section 15 2 of the U. P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972, Rent Act for short , gave a numberice of the same to the District Magistrate.
According to the companyplainant Maharaj Singh this was a false statement.
Ultimately he companyfirmed the order of allotment.
The appellants appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and moved an application that the companyplaint filed by Maharaj Singh was incompetent and the Court companyld number take companynizance of the offences mentioned therein in view of the provision companytained in Section 195 1 b i , Cr.
The proceedings for allotment ended in favour of present appellant Chandrapal Singh on October 22, 1978.
On merits it was held that the learned Magistrate having taken companynizance of the offences as in.
The Fourth Additional District Judge who heard the matter rejected the companytention on the first point and accepted the second and third companytentions.
Firstly, he challenged the allotment order on merits secondly, he urged that the Rent Control Officer had numberjurisdiction to decide the area of the accommodation vacated by Jai Prakash Nagar and thirdly he companytended that the Rent Control Officer had numberjurisdiction to determine the rent.
Maharaj Singh son of the landlord filed a criminal companyplaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, against the present appellants alleging that the three appellants had companymitted offences under Sections 193, 199 and 201 Indian Penal Code.
Appellant 1 is the allottee and appellants 2 and 3 are persons who had filed affidavits in the companyrse of the allotment proceedings before the Rent Control Officer in support of the claim for allotment made by appellant 1.
The Fourth Addl.
District Judge before whom the matter came up for hearing companyfirmed the order of allotment but set aside the finding of the Rent Control Officer about the rent of the premises as well as observations about the ownership of the premises.
58/78 before the District Judge, Bulandshahr impleading present appellant 1 Chandrapal Singh being the allottee of the premises.
60/ per month.
On this companyplaint filed by Maharaj Singh, the son of the landlord, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Secunderabad, took companynizance of the offences and issued process summoning the appellants to appear before him to answer charges under Sections 193, 199 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
Thereupon the appellants moved the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Section 482, Cr.
The net result was that the order of allotment in favour of appellant 1 became final.
Therefore the applicant will submit his case against the Rent Control Officer.
In reaching this companyclusion he also 55 recorded two findings, one about the size of the accommodation vacated by Jai Prakash Nagar and the other about the rent payable for the same.
Maharaj Singh and his father Dhiraj Singh preferred R.C.R, No.
The Rent Control Inspector made a report on January 7, 1978 that the premises was found locked at the time of his inspection.
In the revision petition filed by the landlord against the order of allotment in favour of appellant 1, three companytentions were raised.
385/2 since 1972 and this decision to cause prejudice since this issue was to be decided in the companyrt.
emphasis ours In paragraph 10 he stated that the Rent Control Officer does number fall in the definition of a companyrt, and therefore, Section 195, CrPC, 1973 is number attracted.
There is a similar obligation on the landlord and pursuant to this obligation as prescribed in Section 15 1 of the Rent Act, Maharaj Singh also gave intimation of the vacancy to the District Magistrate on January 5, 1978.
