- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard Sri T. B. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. B. Saran, learned senior Counsel for the respondent No. 3.
(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition and is directed against orders passed by R. C. and E. O. rejecting release application of petitioner landlord under Section 16 of U. P. Rent Regulation Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) and simultaneously allotting the name of respondent No. 3 and order of Revisional Court affirming the said order. Landlord petitioner filed ejectment suit against his previous tenant of the accommodation in dispute, which is a shop on the ground of sub-letting. Respondent No. 3 Dinesh Garg and some other person also applied for allotment of the shop in dispute, contending therein that the said shop was deemed vacant on the ground that it had been sub-let by the tenant. R. C. and E. O. /d. S. O. Saharanpur declared the shop in dispute to be vacant on 10-2-1983. Office of R. C. and E. O. was closed on 11, 12 and 13th February, 1983 due to holidays and on 14-2-1983 landlord filed release application under Section 16 of the Act. It was rejected on 15-2-1983. According to the landlord no objection had been filed against the release application filed by him. By the same order dated 15-2- 1983 shop in dispute was allotted to respondent No. 3. Against order dated 15-2-1983 two revisions were filed under Section 18 of the Act. One by the landlord which was numbered as R. C. Revision No. 97 of 1983, the other by the earlier tenant Narendra Dev which was registered as R. C. Revision No. 92 of 1983. District Judge Saharanpur by judgment and order dated 31-3-1983 dismissed both the revisions, hence this writ petition by the landlord. The judgment of the Revisional Court runs into 98 paragraphs in 70 pages.
(3.) R. C. and E. C. as well as learned District Judge minutely dissected the need of the landlord and thoroughly compared the same with the need of the allottee respondent No. 3. As held in the Full Bench authority of this Court in Talib Hasan v. A. D. J. , 1986 (12) ALR 113 (FB) and by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Sharma v. G. Gaur, AIR 2002 SC 2204. Prospective allottee cannot be heard at the time of consideration of release application of landlord under Section 16 of the Act. He cannot even oppose the need of the landlord. He can also neither refute the evidence adduced by the landlord nor adduced any evidence regarding bona fide need of the landlord. In the instant case not only allottee was permitted to adduce the evidence in rebuttal of bona fide need of landlord but even the need of landlord and prospective allottee were compared by the Courts below. It is patently against the letter and spirit of Section 16 of the Act. Concept of bona fide need under Section 21 on the one hand and under Section 16 on the other hand is quite different. Under Section 21 interest of sitting tenant is to be safeguarded while under Section 16 there is no sitting tenant and prospective allottee has got no say in the matter unless release application of the landlord is rejected.;