Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 27th April, 1992, whereby respondent No. 1 allowed the release application filed by respondent No. 2. The dispute relates to one room situate in Building No. CK 8/85, Garwasi Tola Brahm Nal, Varanasi. The petitioner applied for allotment of the disputed accommodation. It was stated by him that landlord respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement of tenancy and in pursuance of that agreement he was given possession but as there was no allotment order in his favour, he filed an application for regularisation/allotment of the disputed accommodation. Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation on the allegations that he was occupying first floor of Building No. CK 8/85, Garwasi Tola Brahm Nal, Varanasi, and the accommodation in his favour was insufficient and he required the disputed accommodation for his personal need. He opposed the allotment application of the petitioner and stated that, in fact, he was inducted by the tenant, Yagya Narain Misra as his sub -tenant.
(2.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the alleged agreement was not registered and the accommodation in question was not allotted in favour of the petitioner by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. His possession was unauthorised. He declared the accommodation in question as vacant vide order dated 14.9.1990. He considered the release application filed by respondent No. 2 and found that he had lour rooms on the first floor of the building in question which was more than sufficient for his need and accordingly rejected the release application vide order dated 11.7.1991 and on the next date he passed the allotment order in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 2 filed Revision No. 98 of 1991 against the order of allotment of the disputed accommodation in favour of the petitioner and Revision No. 99 of 1991 against the order rejecting his release application. Respondent No. 1 allowed the release application of respondent No. 2 holding that the accommodation in possession on the first floor was insufficient and he required the disputed accommodation for his personal need. I have heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondents.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant of respondent No. 2 and he was in actual possession. He had a right to participate in the proceedings and contest the release application, but respondent No. 1 acted illegally in holding that the petitioner has no right to contest the release application filed by respondent No. 2. Admittedly, there was no allotment order in favour of the petitioner and no valid tenancy rights were existing in his favour. He had himself filed an application for allotment treating the accommodation as vacant. The allotment order could not have been passed unless the release application was finally rejected by the authority concerned. In Talib Hussain and another v. First Additional District Judge, Nainital and others : 1986 (12) ALR 113 (FB), it has been held that a prospective allottee has no right to file objection and contest release application filed by the landlord under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).;