Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-landlord challenges the order passed by the revisional authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 dated 4th November, 1985, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-V to the writ petition, whereby the revisional authority has allowed the revision filed by respondents 2 and 3 against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 28th July, 1983, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'III' to the writ petition.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the shop in question. The aforesaid shop was originally let out to the Thok Evam Futkar Krya Evam Vikray Sahkari Samiti. The said Sahkari Samiti vacated the said shop and the liquidator of the society has handed over the possession of the shop in question to the landlord. The respondents 2 and 3 filed an application that the aforesaid shop is vacant and that the same may be allotted to them. The petitioner/ landlord also filed an application for the release of the aforesaid shop in his favour. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 25th August, 1982 found that the shop in question is vacant, it after considering the application for release on merits allowed the same by the order dated 28th July, 1983 and released the shop in question in favour of the landlord. The respondents 2 and 3 preferred a revision against the order dated 28th July, 1983, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, which as stated above, has been allowed by the revisional court. Thus, this writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-landlord contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Sonkar v. Incharge District Judge and Ors., 1995 (2) ARC 1, wherein the Apex Court has held that while considering the release application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the prospective allottee has no right to contest the same and the matter of release is between the landlord and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Apex Court has affirmed the Full Bench decision in Talib Hussain v. Ist Addl. District Judge, 1986 (1) ARC 1 (FB). The Apex Court in the aforesaid case in paragraph 2 has held, which reads thus : "2. The distinction between the two orders envisaged in Sub-section (1) is well marked. In the case of an allotment order the result is brought about by a dialogue between the prospective tenant and the District Magistrate, thereafter, under whose orders the landlord is required to let any building to the prospective tenant. On the other hand in the case of a release order the dialogue takes place between the District Magistrate and the landlord and the prospective tenant does not figure in it at all. The allotment order and the release order, as the case may be, being mutually exclusive, have separate areas of operation permitting no encroachment of one over the other. The mere fact that the focal point is the District Magistrate from whom flow the respective orders is of no consequence. It is on this understanding of the law that the High Court relying on its Full Bench decision in the case of Talib Husain v. Ist Addl. District Judge, 1986 (1) ARC 1 (FB) : 1986 SCFBRC 369 (All) (FB) : AIR 1986 All 196 (FB) : 1986 All LJ 845 (FB), rejected the prayer of the prospective tenant that he had a right to be heard in a release application of the landlord based as it was on the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 on ground of bona fide requirement. On the allowing of the release application the premises in question ceased to be allotable and since the District Magistrate, thereafter would have no jurisdiction to make an allotment thereof and the prospective tenant consequently has no right to resist the landlord in release proceedings. The view of the High Court seems to us to be correct in the circumstances of the case as also in law because as of today no allotment order subsists in favour of the appellant and yet he continues to be in possession. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant is directed to vacate the premises within one month. It is made clear that he is not debarred from seeking another allotment order of any other premises if he has any such right in accordance with law. The appellant shall pay costs to the respondents throughout which we quantity at Rs. 5,000.";