R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) DISPUTE in this petition is,. mainly, between two allottees. It has been found that one Sri Amol Ratan who was the former tenant, vacated the premises on 13th September, 1979. On the same date, intimation of vacancy was given to the Rent Control Officer, both by Sri Amol Ratan and the landlord Sri Satish Kumar Verma. After calling for a report, vacancy was declared on 22nd September, 79. On 4th October, 79 the landlord intimated the Rent Control Officer that the house may be allotted to Sri Harish Chandra. Earlier also he had sent a letter to the Rent Control Officer on 12th September, 79 that the house was likely to fall vacant and he has agreed for its allotment to Harish Chandra on payment of Rs. 90/- per month as rent, water charges Rs. 10/- and the electricity bill shall be payable by him directly. The Rent Control Officer however allotted the premises in favour of petitioner. Against this order both landlord and Harish Chandra filed revisions which were decided by a common order. The Revising Authority held that as allotment was not made within 21 days from the date of intimation of vacancy the Rent Control Officer was bound to allot it to landlord's nominee, as provided under section 17 of the Act, He accordingly set aside the allotment order in favour of petitioner. It is against this order that petitioner has come to this Court.
(2.) THE learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that as nomination was made on 4th October, which was only 20th day it was not in accordance with section 17. According to him right to nominate is linked with failure of the Rent Control Officer to allot the premises within 21 days. THErefore nomination on 20th day was invalid. It is true that the section requires that, where no such order is so made or communicated within the said period, the landlord may intimate to the District Magistrate the name of a person of his choice and thereupon the District Magistrate shall allot the building in favour of the person nominated. Allotment in favour of nominee before 21 days no doubt shall be illegal. But not the nomination. In Ram Lal v. Shri Mani Singh, 1962 AWR 220 similar controversy arose in respect of rule 4 of Act III of 47 which was in identical language. It was held that nomination before expiry of 21 days was not contrary to rules. It was then argued that as landlord had mentioned rent in the nomination, it was a conditional nomination and such a nomination is not contemplated in the Act. The argument is devoid of any substance. Firstly, there is no such bar in the section, secondly the mention of rent does not invalidate the nomination. Thirdly rent was mentioned in nomination before intimation of vacancy. It was not mentioned in the nomination on 4th October, 79. The requirement of law is that once 21 days expired the landlord may nominate a person and in case he does so the Rent Control Officer is bound to allot the premises to the nominee. As the nomination was in this case by the landlord, the Rent Control Officer had no option and it could not be rejected on this ground that rent was also mentioned. In the result this petition fails and is dismissed, but there is no orders as to the costs. It appears that the allottee had entered the premises, therefore it is expedient to grant him three months' time to vacate the premises. Petition dismissed.;