A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against concurrent orders passed by the courts below releasing the disputed shop in favour of its owner Dr. Biswas Under Section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Petitioner challenges the said order on the ground that the courts below have illegally refused to grant to the Petitioner the benefit of Section 14 of the said Act.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that the shop in question was allotted to the Petitioner on 7 -11 -1974 In consequence of declaration of vacancy notified on 31st of October, 1974. Dr. Biswas (Respondent No. 3 herein) who was also one of the applicants for allotment filed an appeal against the said order of allotment, which was allowed on 15th of July 1975. The appellate court while allowing the appeal remanded the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer with a direction that the said authority should consider the case of Dr. Biswas in the light of the provisions of Rule 10(8)(b) which confers a preferential right in favour of certain categories of prospective allottees. On 5 -9 -1975 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the disputed shop in favour of Dr. Biswas. Against this order the Petitioner filed appeal and in that appeal obtained on 11 -9 -75 an order of stay of the operation of the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The appeal of the Petitioner was eventually dismissed by an order dated 26 -7 -1976. It may be mentioned at this point that in that appeal the Petitioner had filed an affidavit on 19 -8 -1975 asserting categorically that he had not occupied the disputed shop prior to its allotment in his favour by the first order which was passed on 7th of November, 1974. Against the order dated 26th of July 1976 dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, the Petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court which was allowed on 30 -11 -78. In the writ petition the argument raised on behalf of the Petitioner was that the courts below had committed an error in applying Rule 10 (8)(b) to the case and in giving the benefit of that rule to Dr. Biswas. This Court while allowing the writ petition and remanding the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide the various applications for allotment afresh in the light of the observations made in that judgment. After the writ petition was allowed by this Court, the Petitioner filed an application on 6th of January, 1979 claiming for the first time that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the aforesaid Act (as amended by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976) on -the allegation that he was in occupation of the disputed shop as a tenant thereof with the consent of the landlord from before 5th of July, 1976, the date which is relevant for the application of Section 14. Meanwhile, on 13th of March, 1976 Dr. Biswas had purchased the shop from its owner and landlord arrayed in this petition as Respondent No. 4. Dr. Biswas, therefore, filed an application on 19th of April, 1979 applying for the release of the shop as its owner on the ground that he bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation. The Petitioner's application Under Section 14 was rejected on 7th of July, 1979. He did not challenge that order by way of any revision or writ petition. Instead he challenged the order of release passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in favour of Dr. Biswas on 23rd of November, 1979. In the revision filed against the order of release, however, the Petitioner pressed his claim Under Section 14 which has been negatived by the revisional court. The revision of the Petitioner has been dismissed on the finding that on the facts of the present case he is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the courts below have committed an error in not granting to the Petitioner the benefit of Section 14.;