S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's writ petition. Landlord filed a suit for eviction against his previous tenant Smt. Sushila Devi in the year 1968 (O.S. No. 34 of 1968). The suit was decreed. First appeal by District Judge/Additional District Judge, was dismissed, Second appeal was also dismissed by High Court and ultimately in execution of the said decree petitioner got possession of the property in dispute on 17.8.1982. In June, 1982 respondent No. 3 applied for allotment of the accommodation in dispute which is residential and in the adjoining property landlord himself is residing. Landlord filed application for release before R.C. and E.O. under section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. R.C. and E.O./D.S.O., Saharanpur by order dated 11.5.1983 rejected the release application of the landlord, after taking into consideration the evidence brought on record by respondent No. 3, the prospective allottee. In view of the Full Bench Authority of this Court reported in, 1986 1 ARC 1 and : AIR 2002 SC 2204. R.C. and E.O. cannot hear prospective allottee at the stage of release under section 16 of the Act. Release is the matter in between the landlord and R.C. and E.O. The prospective allottee has got no business to intervene. Against order passed by R.C. and E.O. dated 11.5.1983. Petitioner filed a revision under section 18 of the Act being Rent Control Revision No. 272 of 1982. IInd Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 28.5.1983 dismissed the revision. Just before the operative portion of judgment Revisional Court has observed as under: He (R.C. and E.O.) has also considered the requirement of the opposite party for the accommodation, His finding based purely on appraisal of facts and evidence on record, is not therefore, open to challenge in revision. In my opinion it was wrong. Neither the need nor the evidence brought on record by a prospective allottee could be seen. Question of bona fide need is to be decided more liberally under section 16 of the Act than under section 21 of the Act. Landlord filed and contested eviction proceedings regarding accommodation in dispute against the previous tenant which remained pending for about 14 years and got possession thereafter and started residing therein in the adjoining portion of the accommodation in dispute landlord was already residing. This sufficiently proved the bona fide need of the landlord. In this writ petition stay order was granted to the petitioner and it is undisputed that petitioner is in possession and respondent No. 3 was never able to obtain possession in pursuance of the allotment order which was part and parcel of order rejecting the release application. It cannot be said that for more than 22 years respondent No. 3 must not have got any house. In fact there is allegation in the form of supplementary affidavit by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 purchased a house during the pendency of the writ petition. However, this judgment is not based upon the fact.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY writ petition is allowed. Order passed by Revisional Court as well as order assessed by R.C. and E.O. are quashed. Release application of the petitioner under section 16 of the Act filed before R.C. and E.O. is allowed. Petition Allowed.;