S. P. Srivastara, J, - (1.) TNE petitioner who had moved an application on 31-1-84 seeking allotment of the premises in dispute which had been declared vacant on 28-11-83 has approached this Court for redress feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the revising authority In exercise of the Jurisdiction envisaged under section 18 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No 13 of 1972) whereunder reversing the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the premises has been released In favour of the landlord and has prayed for the quashing of the said order.
(2.) A caveat had been filed by Sri M. D. Singh 'Shekhar' Advocate on behalf of Sri Ashok Kumar, respondent no. 2 one of the landlords for whose benefit the premises in dispute had been released I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the caveator and have carefully per used the impugned judgments. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel representing the caveator asserting that in the facts and circumstances of the present case this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner is not entertainable and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. in support of this submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of a Full Bench of this Court In the case of Talib Hasan v. I Additional District Judge Nainital, 1986 (1) ARC 1 and decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Krishna Rani v. District Judge, Dehradun, 1990 (1) ARC 442 and Radhey Lal v. District Judge, Jhansi, 1990 (2) ARC 540.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner however, has, on the other hand asserted that in the present case subsequent to the rejection of the application of release filed by the landlord, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer bad passed an order on 11-4-88 whereunder the premises in dispute had been allotted to the petitioner. It has further been asserted that though the order rejecting the release application and the order allotting the premises in dispute to the petitioner was a composite order passed on 11-4-88 yet the actual order of allotment In pursuance of the composite order referred to above had been issued ia favour of the petitioner on 11-4-88 itself ; a true copy of which had bees filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition This conteation of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of this order of allotment issued separately in pursuance of the composite order passed en the said date to which a reference has been made above, the status of a tenant stood secured in favour of the petitioner in view of section 15 (8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which provides that the allottee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (5) sad (9) and section 18 be deemed to become tenant of the building from the date of allotment or where he is unable to obtain possession by reason of a stay order or of any other having occupied or continued to occupy the building from the date on which he obtained possession. In these circumstances, It is asserted that since by a legal fiction the status of a tenant stood secured in favour of the petitioner fee had become not only a proper but a necessary party in the revision proceedings contemplated under section 18 of the Act and since he had been impleaded in those proceedings, he can, under the law maintain the present writ petition A Full Bench of this Court in its decision in the case of Talib Hasan v. I Additional District judge (supra) had, after carefully considering the various provisions of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the rules framed thereunder bad observed that an application for release under section 16 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No, 13 of 1972 is a matter between the District Magistrate and the landlord in which the out going tenant or the prospective allottee does not have any right to object. It had further been observed that the prospective allottee comes into the picture only after the disposal of the landlord's application for release under section 16 (1) (b) and only if the same is rejected. The Full Bench went on to observe that the prospective allottee has no right or interest in the property or claim against the landlord so as to be entitled to any hearing in the disposal of the release application and has no right to be heard in opposition to such an application;