R.P. Singh, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Judge, Pilibhit allowing the revision after setting aside the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and further releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlady respondent No. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the shop situate at J.P. Road in Pilibhit was in tenancy of one Sharafat Ullah who intimated to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that he was going to vacate the said shop. Respondent No. 2 the landlady of the disputed accommodation then filed an application for release of the said accommodation while the petitioner filed an application for allotment of the said accommodation in his favour. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide his order dated 4.1.83 holding that the need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation was not bona fide and genuine rejected her application for the release of the disputed accommodation and further holding that the accommodation was already in possession of the petitioner who was the only applicant for allotment of the same, ordered the allotment of the disputed accommodation in favour of the petitioner. The landlady respondent No. 2 feeling aggrieved, went up in revision before the District Judge who vide the impugned order allowed the revision after setting aside the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and further ordered the release of the said accommodation in favour of the landlady respondent No. 2 which order is in challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) HEARD Sri Triloki Nath learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Navin Sinha for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to re -assess the evidence and interfere in finding of fact in revisional jurisdiction and hence the impugned order passed by him after re -assessment of the evidence and interfering on the question of fact is liable to be set aside. He further contended that the District Judge after allowing the revision could not himself order the release of the disputed accommodation vide the impugned order and hence also the impugned order passed by him is liable to be set aside.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the petitioner being a prospective allottee could not be allowed to participate in the proceedings for the release of the disputed accommodation and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in allowing the petitioner, who is a prospective allottee to participate in the proceedings regarding release of the disputed accommodation has clearly committed a manifest error of law and hence the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is liable to be set aside. He further contended that the need of the landlady respondent No. 2 should have been decided on its own merit irrespective of the case set up by the prospective allottee regarding his possession in the disputed accommodation and, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in rejecting the release application on the ground that the petitioner is already in possession of the disputed accommodation and paying rent to the landlady, and hence the need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation is not bona fide and genuine has wrongly rejected the release application after taking extraneous facts into consideration and hence the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is liable to be set aside and in that view of the matter this Court should not interfere in the order passed in revision by the District Judge allowing the revision and ordering the release of the accommodation in favour of the landlady.;