K.N. Goyal, J. - (1.) A residential building was declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, in 1977, to have fallen vacant. The Petitioner was one of the persons who applied for allotment of the same. In respect of rival claims for allotment, a writ petition was earlier filed in this Court, being petition No. 1925 of 1979. By an order dated 4 -4 -1980, the matter was remanded to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer who was required by this Court to pass fresh order in accordance with law. During the pendency of the allotment proceedings the original owner of the building transferred the house by sale in favour of opposite parties 3 to 5 who thereafter made an application for release in their favour on 3 -11 -1982. The Petitioner opposed the consideration of this release application, but his objection has been rejected by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer and on revision by the Additional District Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE rulings relied on by the learned Additional District Judge in his appellate order do support his order. The following propositions have been laid down in the cases relied on: 1. That a transferee landlord acquires all rights of a previous landlord vide Chandrika Pd. v. D.J., 1981 ARC 346, and a release application filed by him is therefore legally maintainable although his predecessor had not made any such application. 2. That even if an application for release has once been dismissed a subsequent application for release is maintainable on the basis of new facts and grounds so long as the matter of allotment or release has not become final, vide Sheo Charan Lal Gulati v. Addl. District Judge, 1983 UP RCC 244 (para 26). That once an allotment case has been remanded for reconsideration to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer with certain directions it is open to a transferee landlord to make an application for release and the Rent Control & Eviction Officer is under duty to dispose of the release application first before considering the applications for allotment, vide Smt. Manju Duggal v. II Addl. District Judge, 1984 (1) ARC 626. 3. In the instant case, the previous landlord had not made any release application at all. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri P.N. Mathur baa however, contended that the requirement of Rule 13(4), namely, that no application for allotment shall be considered unless an application for release has been rejected, itself implies that the stage form making an application for release is passed as soon as, for want of a release application, applications for allotment are taken up for consideration. He, accordingly, prays for reconsideration of the earlier decisions referred to above and for reference of the question to a larger Bench.
(3.) IT is true that if the previous landlord had made an application for release then no application for allotment could be taken up for consideration until after rejection of the release application. He, however, did not make any application for release and it was because of this that the applications for allotment came to be considered. This only implies that the previous owner did not need the building for himself and that may be a reason why he sold it away. If the new owner does need the building for himself, there is nothing in law to prevent him from asserting his need. The applicant for allotment cannot contend that they have acquired any vested right to have their applications considered without any application for the release being considered.;