M.P.Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONER is a prospective allottee. By means of the impugned order the court below has allowed the revision of the opposite parties, who are the landlords and remanded the case to Rent Control and Eviction Officer for fresh decision
(2.) DISPUTED accommodation is a part of house No. 474, Khurbura, Dehradun, consisting of three rooms, kitchen, store, bath-room and latrine. Short Facts : The accommodation was declared vacant under Section 12 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 3-1-1986 on account of the death of the sitting tenant. It was followed by the proceedings for allotment initiated on the application filed by Smt. Krishna Rani (petitioner). The landlords also filed application for release under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. Their case was that they were co-owners and were carrying on transport business in partnership under the name and style of M/s. Highway Motor Company. The office of the said transport company and the office of M/s. Dehra Auto Finance and Rajiv Transport Company which also belonged to them, were situated in a part of property No. 69, Gandhi Road, Dehradun. Son of applicant no. 1 Ajay Gurg was carrying on wool combing business from the said premises. The above accommodation was wholly insufficient for their business. It was also alleged that most of the routes on which their vehicles were plied, were hilly routes and many of the employees of the applicants were residents of either district Uttarkashi or Chakrata Tehsil. Neither these employees owned nor possessed any property in Dehradun. The applicants were bound to provide accommodation to them for their nignt shelter and rest. The applicants had no other accommodation except the accommodation in question. The need of the applicants was alleged to be bona fide and genuine. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer while considering the release application, had also given an opportunity to the prospective allottee to contest the same and to support his application for allotment.
(3.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide a composite order dated 24th March, 1986 rejected the release application and passed an order of allotment in favour of the petitioner. This order was challenged by the landlords by means of a revision under Section 18 of the Act. Before the revisional court the only point which was argued was that the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer was bad in law in as much as he has committed the prospective allottee to participate in the proceedings while dispensing off the application for release.;