Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the landlord for quashing the order dated 25.4.1984 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh declaring vacancy in the premises in dispute. The only question involved in this petition is as to whether the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could examine the correctness of the release order passed by the prescribed authority under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) while considering the application for allotment and declaring vacancy under sections 12 and 16 of the Act. The order of the prescribed authority releasing premises under section 21(1)(a) of the Act was ignored and held to be collusive by Rent Control and Eviction Officer while, considering the application under section 12/16 of the Act.
(2.) I have heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri V.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Even in the revised list no one has appeared for the respondent despite the name of the Counsel having been printed in the cause list. I have also heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. In the present case in proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of the Act prescribed authority vide order dated 6.10.1982 had allowed the release application in terms of the compromise and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within 15 days. This order of the prescribed authority passed in Case No. 83 of 1982 has become final. Subsequently, the application was filed for allotment on the ground that the landlord had obtained collusive order from the Court of prescribed authority in collusion with the tenant. In fact the premises was not required by the landlord and she was not using it but was keeping it locked. The landlord filed objections stating that the premises had been released in her favour. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide impugned order has held that the order of release dated 6.10.1982 passed by the prescribed authority was obtained in collusion and the need set up by the landlord was not bona fide.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no authority/jurisdiction to examine the correctness or legality of the order passed by the prescribed authority. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Ghaziabad, 1980 (6) ALR 338 and also another judgment given in case of Sultan Ahmad v. Prescribed Authority, 1984 (1) ARC 283. In both these cases it has been held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer will have no jurisdiction to allot premises released to the landlord under section 21(1)(a) of the Act. I agree with the law laid down in the aforesaid cases by this Court. The order of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer in the present writ petition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.4.1984 is set aside and the proceedings for allotment are quashed.;