- (1.) Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Sri Kushal Kant, learned counsel for respondents. Certain chronological events are necessary to understand the dispute in this matter which are very short but to my mind demonstrates a mischievous approach on the part of petitioner which has forced this litigation upon respondents. The dispute relates to House No. 29/14 Maheshwari Mohal, Kanpur, initially owned by Sri Purshottam Das Maheshwari who died on 12.04.1970 and thereafter it was inherited by his legal heirs, namely, his wife, Smt. Laxmi Devi and son, Prem Kumar. After the death of Smt. Laxmi Devi and Prem Kumar the property has devolved upon their legal heirs. It appears that one of the legal heir, namely, Roop Kishore Maheshwari (allegedly owned half of the building in dispute) intimated vacancy to Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the "RCEO") on 03.01.2003 and also nominated petitioner for allotment of said accommodation under Section 17(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"). Thereafter Sri Roop Kishore Maheshwari sold the premises (his share) owned by him to respondents vide sale deed dated 28.05.2005. The respondents-landlords who claim to own the entire premises, moved an application on 23.09.2003 seeking time to file objection in the allotment proceedings pending before RCEO which stood initiated after intimation of vacancy by erstwhile owner of half of premises, namely, Roop Kishore Maheshwari vide his letter dated 03.01.2003. It does not appear as to whether any actual objection was filed by respondents or not but the RCEO proceeded to declare vacancy in the premises in question on 14.01.2004. However, before passing any order of allotment the respondents-landlords moved release application allegedly dated 04.02.2004 seeking release of accommodation in question in their favour. This Court however, finds that copy of release application is on record as Annexure-CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by respondents and it shows the date of verification as 04.05.2004. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that release application was actually filed by respondents-landlords much before the date of actual order of allotment made by RCEO, i.e., 03.03.2005 and sometimes in May, 2004. The RCEO ignoring release application passed order dated 03.03.2005 making allotment of accommodation in question in favour of petitioner on the basis of nomination made by erstwhile co-owner, Roop Kishore Maheshwari on 03.01.2003. This order dated 03.03.2005 was assailed by respondents before Revisional Court in Revision No. 34 of 2005, which has been allowed vide judgment dated 12.08.2005 and the Revisional Court after setting aside the order of allotment dated 03.03.2005, directed that RCEO first should take decision and decide landlords' release application.
(2.) Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 17(1) the of Act, 1972 a landlord has been permitted to make nomination within 21 days and once nomination is made, thereafter the allotment has to be made in terms of nomination since it confers a right upon the person nominated by landlord and the Revisional Court has acted wholly illegally in passing the impugned judgment.
(3.) The submission is thoroughly misconceived.;