S.C. Varma, J. - (1.) THE present dispute relates to House No. 15/216 Chamangan, Kanpur. Initially suit No. 406 of 1968 was filed by Respondent No. 3 against one Gyas Moizuddin, who was former tenant of the disputed premises for arrears of rent and eviction. Decree for eviction was ultimately confirmed by Hon. Supreme Court by order dated 6 -4 -1984 and the tenant was directed to vacate the premises by 10 -4 -1984.
(2.) AN application for allotment dated 18 -4 -1984 was filed by the Petitioner, Mohammad Haroon Siddiqui in anticipation of vacancy. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 16 -4 -1984 allotted the premises in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner allottee claimed to have received the possession on 17 -5 -1984, which is disputed by the landlord. The landlord also moved an application for the release of the accommodation on 17th May 1984. By an order dated 18th October 1985 in Rent revision No. 170 of 1984 the learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Kanpur, set aside the allotment order and the case was remanded back to the court below for deciding it afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. The said release application of the landlord was also directed to be considered in accordance with law. The Rent control and Eviction Officer in pursuance of the aforesaid order, by order dated 25 -3 -1987 allowed the release application of the landlord. While adjudicating the release application the alleged prospective allottee, the present Petitioner was not allowed to contest the release application on the ground that he has no locus -standi as prospective allottee, to contest these proceedings. This order was affirmed in revision by order dated 27 -9 -1991 by XII Additional District Judge, Kanpur and the release of the premises in dispute, in favour of the landlord, was confirmed. The orders dated 25 -3 -1987 and 27 -9 -1991 have been impugned in the present petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the orders on the ground that the courts below have erred in disallowing the prospective allottee, under the circumstances, to contest the release application. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.K. Pilai v. Additional District Judge, 1986 (1) All RC 220.
(3.) ACCORDING to the Learned Counsel Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside exparte order of release passed in favour of the landlord, which was affirmed by the High Court G.S. Pilai v. Additional District Magistrate, 1985 (2) ARC 174, remanded the case back to the prescribed authority to dispose of the release application after giving due notice and hearing to both the parties in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in these circumstances vehemently contended that the High Court while affirming the release order in favour of the landlord had disallowed participation of the prospective allottee for consideration of the release application and since Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted both the parties to be heard in accordance with the law, the courts below have wrongly held that the Petitioner has no locus standi to participate in the proceedings for release under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act.;