R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 27.11.2000 whereby the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Shikohabad, in exercise of the powers under Section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, released the building in question in favour of respondent No. 2 - -landlord. Relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner applied for allotment of House No. 354, Sabzi Mandi, Katra Meera, Firozabad, hereinafter referred to as 'the house in dispute'. The house in dispute was thereafter allotted in favour of the petitioner on 26.2.1999 by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer. On the basis of the said allotment, possession was also delivered to the petitioner on 28.2.1999. The said order of allotment was objected to by the respondent No. 2 - -landlord on which notices were issued to the petitioner. After hearing the parties, the order of allotment was cancelled by order dated 9.4.1999. Validity of the said order was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional authority, the revision was allowed by order dated 15.7.1999 and the case was remanded to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer for decision afresh. It was on 13.11.2000 that the landlord applied for release of the building in his favour under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer after hearing the parties and perusing the record came to the conclusion that the petitioner obtained the order of allotment by playing fraud. The respondent No. 2 was the owner and landlord of the house in dispute. The application of the petitioner for allotment of the house in dispute was, therefore, liable to be dismissed and the house in dispute was liable to be released in favour of respondent No. 2. Having recorded the said findings, application for allotment dated 15.4.1998 was dismissed and the house in dispute was released in favour of the said respondent by the judgment and order dated 27.11.2000. Hence, the present petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the judgment and order passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer was wholly illegal. The same was, therefore, liable to be quashed. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.
(3.) THE present petition is legally not maintainable and is liable to be rejected on the following grounds: - - (1) An order passed under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act is revisable under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioner having failed to exhaust the statutory alternative remedy and having approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India straightaway, this petition is liable to be dismissed on account of availability of statutory alternative remedy. (2) The status of the petitioner is that of a prospective allottee. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Talib Hasan and another v. Ist Additional District Judge, Nainital, and others, 1986 (12) ALR 113 (F.B.), which was also approved by the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Sonkar v. Incharge District Judge and others, 1994 (1) SCC 646, this petition is legally not maintainable. For the facts and reasons stated above, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.;