- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioner and also perused the record. Present petition arises out of proceedings under. Section 16 read with Section 12 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act and is directed against the order dated 31-5-2000 whereby the ap plication filed by the petitioner for inspec tion of the building in question has been rejected by the Respondent No. 1.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner made an application for allotment of House No. 33/696-A, Munshi Purwa, Kanpur which according to him was vacant as the same was vacated by Mohd. Anis who was the tenant in the said building. The Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to make local inspec tion and submit his report. The Rent Con trol Inspector, thereafter inspected the building in question and submitted his report. On the basis of the said report the building in question was declared vacant by the judgment and order dated 3-3-1994 and by order dated 21-3-1994 the above noted building was allotted to the petitioner and possession over the said building was also delivered to him to the extent it was in occupation of Mohd. Anis on 29-3-1994. The petitioner after taking possession over the building in question offered to pay the rent of the same to the landlady, the Respondent No. 3 but she refused to accept the same. Therefore, the rent was deposited under Section 30 of the Act and thereafter continued to deposit the rent in the Court. Respondent No. 3, challenging the validity of the order of declaration of vacancy and allotment filed an application under Section 16 (5) of the Act contending that the building in ques tion was declared vacant without following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules and that too without afford ing an opportunity of hearing to her and that as soon as she came to know about the declaration of vacancy and allotment, she filed an application for review. The ap plication filed by the Respondent No. 3 was opposed by the petitioner. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after going through the material on the record set aside the order of allotment dated 21- 3-1994 holding that provisions of Rule 8 (2) of the Rules framed under the Act, were not complied with and the allotment or ders were passed without affording an op portunity of hearing to the landlady, by the judgment and order dated 21-7-1998. Challenging the validity of the said order the petitioner filed a revision under Sec tion 18 of the Act which was registered as Rent Revision No. 42 of 1998. The said revision was dismissed on 21-4-1999. The Respondent No. 3 thereafter filed an ap plication under Section 16 (l) (b) of the Act. The release application filed by the Respondent No. 3 was ultimately allowed by judgment and order dated 18-6-1999. The petitioner, thereafter filed an application under Section 16 (5) for recalling the order dated 18-6-1999. According to him the order of release was passed behind his back and without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. According to the petitioner the release application was based on false facts. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after hearing the parties dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 16 (5) of the Act by his order dated 22-11-1999. The validity of the said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision under Sec tion 18 of the Act before the Court below. In the said revision, petitioner filed an application stating therein that the order of release was obtained by suppression of material facts. The same was therefore liable to be set aside. She also applied for local inspection of the building in posses sion of the Respondent No. 3 and also applied for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection of the building in possession and occupation of the Respondent No. 3. The said application was opposed by the Respondent No. 3. The Revisional Court after hearing the parties dismissed the application by order dated 29-5-2000. Hence the present petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the release order was obtained by the Respon dent No. 3 by suppressing the material facts therefore, it was necessary for the Court below to issue a commission to in spect the building in possession of the said respondent. The Court below acted il legally in rejecting the said application. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) THE Revisional Court in the im pugned order observed that in the revision' only the validity of the impugned order is to be seen. For the said purpose, it is not necessary to inspect the said building and that there was no justification for appoint ment of an Advocate Commissioner inas much as inspection report of the building in question is already on the record. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. In my opinion petitioner has got no right to intervene in the proceedings. Ad mittedly the order of allotment passed in his favour has already been cancelled. At present his status is that of a prospective allottee. It is well settled in law that the matter of release is between the District Magistrate and the landlord. THE prospec tive allottee has got no right to intervene in the proceedings for release of the building. A reference in this regard may be made to a decision in Talib Hasan and another v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital and others. THE said decision was also ap proved by the apex Court in. . . . . . . . . . . In view of the aforesaid decision no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order may be issued to learned Counsel for the petitioner within four days on payment of usual charges. Petition dismissed. .;