S.Narain - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 6th April, 1990 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi (respondent no. 2) releasing the disputed property in favour of landlord, respondent no. 3, and order dated 29-9-93 passed by respondent no. 1 affirming the said order, in revision.
(2.) THE dispute relates to a garrage at ground floor of building no. D. 39/26, Khudai Ki Chowki, Varanasi. Respondent no. 3 is landlord of this building One Kanti Lal was tenant of the disputed accommodation. THE landlord filed suit for ejectment against him in Civil Court, Varanasi. THE suit was decreed for his ejectment and the judgment was affirmed by the High Court An application for execution was filed against him and warrant of delivery of possession against him was issued by the executing court on 22nd March, 1986. Respondent no. 3 filed an application for release of the said accommodation on 4th March, 1988. He also prayed that the accommodation vacated by one Vimal Kant Varma consisting of two rooms and; a kitchen be also released in his favour which is adjoining to the garrage room. The petitioner filed an application on 30-9-1986 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allotment of the premises vacated by Sri Kanti Lal. He further filed an application on 15th January, 1987 that the application of the landlord for release of the disputed premises be rejected. He also filed an affidavit in support of his application stating that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and genuine. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after takiDg into consideratin the report of the Rent Control Inspector and the affidavit filed by the landlord came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was bona fide on considering the number of members of his family and the total accommodation with him. He also heard the arguments rifted on behalf of the petitioner in opposition to the application for release filed by the landlord but took the view that a prospective allottee has no right to contest a release application filed by the landlord. The petitioner aggrieved against the said order filed revision before the District Judge, Varanasi-. Respondent no. I held that the petitioner has no right to file revision against an order of release passed in favour of 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). He accordingly dismissed the revision by his order dated 29-9-1993. The petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken by respondents nos. 1 and 2 that a prospective allottee has no right to the contest the release application, or to adduce evidence showing that the need of the landlord is not bona fide is erroneous in law.
(3.) THERE are two questions. Firstly, whether a prospective allottee has a right to contest the release application and secondly, whether he has a right to lead any evidence to show that the version of the landlord that his need is bona fide, is incorrect. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a prospective allottee has vested right to get his allotment application considered on merits only after rejection of release application of the landlord and unless he is given right to contest the release application a landlord may obtain an order of release of accommodation on false averments or by concealment of material facts.;