K.B.Lal, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of allotment dated 30-6-1978 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur and the orders dated 2-12-1978 and 17-12-1979 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur.
(2.) A residential portion of house No. 79/108, Bansmandi Kanpur fell vacant Haneef Khan the present petitioner made an application on 18-6-1973 for allotment of that portion to him. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer received report of the Rent Control Inspector regarding vacancy of the said portion on 3-7-1973 and notified the vacancy on 4-7-1973. Thereafter other persons also made applications for allotment of that portion, and Mushtaq Ahmad respondent no. 3 was one of them. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer observed that the applicants at serial nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were not available for consideration. He added that applicant no. 1 (Haneef Khan) the present petitioner had other tenanted accommodation in his possession. Applicant no. 6 (Mushtaq Ahmad) the present respondent no. 3, did not have any house of his own and, therefore, he was the best applicant. Though Haneef Khan was the first applicant and Mushtaq Ahmad was a subsequent applicant, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the portion of the house to Mushtaq Ahmad. Being aggrieved by this order Haneef Khan filed Rent Control Revision no. 100 of 1978 in the court of the District Judge, Kanpur. That revision was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Kanpur. The learned Additional District Judge, relying on the decision Syed Mohammad Fahim v. The Third Additional District Judge, 1978 Alld. Rent Cases 412 held that the revision was not maintainable. He, therefore, dismissed the revision on this short ground. Haneef Khan moved a review of this order and placed reliance on the decision Indian Farmers Fertilisers Corporation Ltd. v. E. C. Grover, 1978 AWC 772. But his review application was also dismissed by an order dated 17-12-1979. Now Haneef Khan has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) THE learned counsel for Haneef Khan has assailed the order of allotment dated 30-6-i 978 on merits. He has urged that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer misread the allotment application of the petitioner, and therefore, passed a wrong order of allotment. Since the petitioner was the first applicant and had no other accommodation for his residential purposes he was entitled to allotment of the accommodation on the principle of first come first served. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 2-12-1978 dismissing the revision as not maintainable, on the ground that it was based on a misreading of the decision Syed Mohammad Fahim v. The Third Additional District Judge (Supra). In this connection he has pointed out that this writ petition was admitted by the same Hon'ble Judge who had rendered the judgment in Syed Mohammad Fahim's case, and this was done in full knowledge of that case.;