M.L.Bhatt, J. - (1.) THE right of prospective allottee comes into picture only after the rejection of the landlord's application for release. The principle is laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Talib Hasan v. I.A.D.J. Nainital and others, 1986 (12) ALR 113. In the two writ petitions, which are being disposed of by a common judgment, the prospective allottees were heard before any decision was given on the application for release filed by the landlords in two cases. The two sets of prospective allottees in the two cases were allowed, to file affidavits and evidence to resist the landlords' application for release of the property: On the basis of that evidence produced by the prospective allottees the respondent No. 1 dismissed the claim of the landlords and held that they have no bona fide requirement of the property in question, on revision the finding of the respondent No. 1 was set aside by the revisional authority. The petitioners have filed the writ petitions challenging the finding of the revisional authority.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The Supreme Court authority G.K. Pillai v. Addl. Distt. Judge IV, Lucknow & others, : 1985 (11) ALR 533 cannot be applied to the facts of the present case because that authority is per incuriam and does not lay down any law. It seems that the order passed by the Supreme Court was on concession or on some compassionate ground. Moreover, the Full Bench judgment of this Court has not been overruled. That being so, the provisions of law, as exist, or the existing eviction law applicable to the case, do not recognise the prospective allottee to be heard before the landlord's application for release is dismissed. In the present case the landlords' applications were being enquired into when the two prospective allottees of the two cases appeared on the scene and started resisting the landlords' claim. They had no locus standi to do so.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the prospective allottees had no locus standi to resist the applications, the material brought on record could be considered by the respondent in determining the bona fide need of the landlords. I do not accept this contention as correct because any evidence brought by the allottees on. the record without having any right is redundant and superfluous, which could not be looked into by the court below. There is no error in the judgments passed by the revisional court. The judgments are sound and based on law. As such no writ would lie for setting aside the said judgments under Article 226 of the Constitution The result is that the writ petitions are dismissed in limine.;