S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Property in dispute is a shop, which has been let out to the petitioner tenant by landlord respondent No. 3 Kishore, Chand after July 1976 without any allotment order under Section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In view of the Supreme Court authority, reported in Nootan Kumar v. A.D.J., AIR 2002 SC 3456 : 2002 SCFBRC 599 : 2002 (2) ARC 645, such an agreement of tenancy is binding in between the parties but not upon the Rent Control authorities and Rent Control authorities are entitled to treat such building vacant and allot the same to any person However, the Supreme Court in 2000 SCFBRC 188: 2000 (1) ARC 557 AIR 2000 SC 1168 R.K. Pamsher v. Dinesh Kumar has held that such building can be let out to the sitting tenant also.
(2.) Respondent No. 2 Jugal Kishor Pandey filed allotment application before R.C. & E.O., Gorakhpur for allotment of the shop in dispute. In the said application he stated that the shop should be deemed to be vacant, as it had been let out after July 1976 without allotment order. Petitioner also applied for allotment. No third person made any application for allotment. Landlord respondent No. 3 supported the petitioner and nominated/recommended him for allotment. It appears that landlord's nomination/recommendation/preference had been filed even before allotment application of the petitioner. R.C & E.O. through order dated 11.7.1986, allotted the shop in dispute to the petitioner/sitting tenant. Against the said order, respondent No. 2 Jugal Kishor Pandey applicant for allotment (prospective allottee) filed Civil Revision No. 230 of 1986. IV Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 6.11.1987. Revisional Court set-aside the order of R.C. & E.O. dated 11.7.1986, allotting the shop in dispute to the petitioner and remanded the matter to the R.C. & E.O. to reconsider the comparative needs of petitioner and respondent No. 2. The prospective allottee and allot the shop in dispute to the proper person. It was further directed that no fresh allotment application should be considered. This writ petition is directed against order dated 6.11.1987 passed by the revisional Court
(3.) Revisional Court held that intimation of vacancy by the landlord was not within the time provided under the Act. Under Section 15 (4) of the Act there is provision for condoning the delay in intimation of vacancy.;