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 20.7.1998 declaring the building in question as vacant order dated 28.9.1998 order of allotment and order dated 26.2.1999 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner as not maintainable.
(2.) It appears that on an application for allotment filed by respondent No. 3, proceedings under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, for short, "the Act") were initiated. Ultimately, the building in question was declared vacant by the order dated 20.7.1998 and thereafter same was allotted in favour of respondent No. 3. The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the respondent No. 1 as not maintainable, hence the present petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders declaring the vacancy of the building in question and order of allotment in favour of respondent No. 3 are illegal and are liable to be set aside. According to him, the said orders were passed behind his back and without affording him opportunity of hearing. On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 supported the validity of the impugned order. It was urged that the petitioner, in case he was of the view that the order was passed ex parte, could make an application for setting aside the ex parte order before the authorities below. He could also file a revision against the order of allotment under Section 18 of the Act, a revision against the order declaring vacancy was legally not maintainable. In view of availability of statutory alternative remedy, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.;