R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) A premises consisting of first floor portion of house No. 88/451, Humayun Bagh, Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar (here -in -after referred to as the premises) of which the Respondent No. 4 was the landlord fell vacant and an intimation to that effect was given to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Kanpur (here -in -after referred to as the R.C.E.O.). Vacancy was accordingly declared by the R.C.E.O. No allotment having been made within 21 days from the date of receipt of the intimation, the landlord nominated the Petitioner on 29 -10 -1982 for allotment of the premises under Sub -section (1) of Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as the Act). Petitioner accordingly made an application for allotment in her favour before the R.C.E.O. No action having been taken on the said nomination, the landlord again on 5 -12 -1988 submitted his nomination in favour of the Petitioner under the aforesaid provisions for allotment in her favour. The R.C.E.O. inspite of the nomination of the landlord did not make any allotment in favour of the Petitioner and kept the proceedings pending for about 2 1/2 years. In the mean time the landlord permitted the Petitioner to occupy the premises on 31 -8 -1988 and the Petitioner has been in continuous possession thereof since then. It appears that a letter dated 8 -1 -1991 on the landlord revoking the nomination made in 1988 in favour of the Petitioner was filed before the R.C.E.O. Thereafter the R.C.E.O. started the proceedings effectively and by his order dated 20 -7 -1991 allotted the premises in favour of the Respondent No. 3 and rejected the application of allotment of the Petitioner. Against this order the Petitioner filed a revision, which ha also been dismissed by order dated 1 -11 -1991. It is against these to orders that this writ petition has been filed for their quashing and for other appropriate reliefs in connection therewith.
(2.) PARTIES have exchanged affidavits and 1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has mide three submissions, namely, (i) Petitioner, being nominee of the landlord under Sub -section (1) of Section 17 of the Act, was entitled to be allotted the premises, (ii), the Petitioner was not %n unauthorized occupant an I her application could not have been rejected on that ground; and (iii) revision filed by the Petitioner was dismissed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, apart from controverting the aforesaid submissions, has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the revision and this writ petition filed by the Petitioner are not maintainable
(3.) THE preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondents can not be sustained. An applicant for allotment can always challenge an order rejecting his application and allotting the accommodation to the rival applicant. The position of the Petitioner was much better than a rival applicant. As mentioned above, the Petitioner was a nominee of the landlord under Sub -section (1) of Section 17 of the Act and the R.C.E.O. was bound to allot the premises in her favour unless her application is rejected for reasons to be recorded in accordance with law. The decision of this Court in Syed. Mohd Fahim v. 3rd Additional District Judge, Kanpur, 1978 ARC 412, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Respondents cannot help him. In the case of Syed. Mohd. Fahim (supra) the application for allotment of the Petitioner therein was rejected on the ground that Sub -section (2) of Section 17 did not apply to a residential accommodation and nothing was shown that the rejection of his application...was erroneous or illegal. The aforesaid findings were upheld by this Court. After upholding the findings, rejecting the application for allotment of the Petitioner in that case, this Court observed that, "if his application for allotment is rejected, he cannot have any legal interest to challenge the allotment order made in favour of Respondent no 3" The aforesaid observation cannot be read to mean that an applicant for allotment does not have a right to challenge the rejection of his application, and the allotment in favour of a rival applicant by means of revision or writ petition. When the orders of the court s rejecting the application for allotment of a person is upheld, that person ceases to have an interest in the matter of allotment to another person and in that view of the matter the observation was made by this Court to the effect that the Petitioner in that case cannot challenge the allotment order made in favour of another person. After the application for allotment of a person has been validly rejected, it does not concern him as to whom the premises is allotted. The position would however, be different, if the order rejecting the application for allotment is erroneous and unsustainable . In such a case the person whose application has been rejected can challenge by way of revision and the writ petition not only the order rejecting his application but also the order allotting the promises to the rival applicant In the instant case, for the reasons given below the order rejecting the application of the Petitioner being erroneous the Petitioner has the right to challenge the impugned order rejecting his application and allotting the premises to Respondent No. 3.;