K.N. Goyal, J. - (1.) One Nathu Ram was the tenant of a shop and on coming to know that he was intending to vacate the same the petitioner on 22-7-74 made an application for allotment of the same m his favour. An order of allotment was also passed in his favour on 6-8-74 and the petitioner was given possession. The landlord respondent No. 3 was not aware of these proceedings as he had not been given any notice as required by Rule 9 (3) of the Rules made under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. He accordingly filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Act (as it then stood) against the allotment order. That appeal was allowed and the allotment was held to be invalid for want of notice to the landlord before the passing of the order. The learned District Judge on 9-10-74, vide his appellate order annexure 2 to the petition, remanded the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who exercised the powers of the District Magistrate under the Act. When the matter went back to the RCEO the landlord moved an application for release of the accommodation in Ins favour. The petitioner filed objections against the release application. Only the landlord was allowed to adduce evidence. The petitioner was not allowed to give evidence. The release application was rejected by the RCEO on 26-2-75, vide annexure 6. The landlord respondent thereupon filed an appeal without impleading the petitioner. Only the District Magistrate was impleaded as respondent in the appeal. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal on 29-9-75 and ordered the release of the accommodation in favour of the respondent. It was also mentioned that the application of the petitioner for allotment consequently became in-fructuous. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has come to this court.
(2.) The petition was cognizable by a single Judge according to the Rules of the Court. A learned single Judge on 25-7-77 directed that the question of validity of Rule 13 (4) be referred to a Division Bench. In fact another Writ Petition No. 1611 of 1974, Ram Dayal v. District Judge had already been referred to the Division Bench on this question, but we are informed by the parties counsel that the said writ petition has been decided on other grounds and the question of validity of Rule 13 (4) remained undecided. It is thus that this petition has been placed before a Division Bench by order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
(3.) Rule 13 (4) referred to above ran as follows:- "(4) Every application under Section 16 (I) (b) shall be a matter between the District Magistrate and the landlord, and the out-going tenant or the prospective allottee, if any, shall have no right to file any objection against it." This sub-rule was deleted on 25-5-77 on which date an altogether different R. 13 was substituted. The rule as now substituted does not make any specific provision as to whether in an application for release made by the landlord a prospective allottee has a right to be heard or not. The new rule is thus silent on this question. However, Rule 13 (4) quoted above was in force at the time of the impugned decision by the Additional District Judge.;