S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) :-
(2.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The property in dispute is a shop no. 107, Vivekanand Marg, Allahabad, Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under. A suit for ejectment had been filed against the tenant K. K. Bhargava, being Suit No. 60 of 1978. This suit was, ultimately, decreed. The appellate judgment is dated 3rd April, 1979. On 18th May, 1979, the landlord late Sri S. P. Mushran filed a release application. Before filing of the release application, late S. P. Mushran filed an application for allotment of the premises even before K. K. Bhargava was evicted from the premises in dispute. On 19th March, 1980, a joint application was made by the petitioner with a prayer that the building in dispute be allotted to S. P. Sahu. In paragraph 2 of this application, jt was stated that the release application may be dismissed in view of the compromise, as stated in para 1, to the prejudice of the rights of the landlord. This application was, ultimately, dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 19th March 1980, on the ground that though Sri R. P. Tripathi had signed on behalf of the applicant and Sri G. C. Mehrotra on behalf of the landlord, but there is no Vakalatnama of Sri R. P. Tripathi and neither there is the signature of S. P. Sahu and, as such, the application was not granted and it was directed that the parties may give evidence of need on 28th March, 1980. On 25th April 1980, an application was moved with a request that the premises be allotted to the petitioner as nominee of the landlord. This application was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 9th May, 1980. Against the said order, a revision was filed by one Dinesh Kumar Gupta, who was one of the applicants for allotment. The District Judge, Allahabad, by his order dated 16th September, 1980, allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and remanded the case for decision afresh. The petitioner has now challenged the order dated 16th September, 1980, by means of the present petition.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions before me. His first contention is that the view taken by the learned District Judge, that the landlord could not nominate the petitioner on 25th April, 1980, is manifestly erroneous in law. His submission is that the landlord rightly nominated the petitioner under section 17 of the Act, as no allotment order had been passed within 21 days from the date of intimation of the vacancy. The second submission of the learned counsel is that the District Judge has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction under section 18 of the Act in reversing the finding of fact recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, that the nomination in favour of the petitioner was a valid nomination. He has further urged that the revisional court could not make observations in regard to facts, which are likely to prejudice the petitioner's case.;