A.N. Dikshit, J. - (1.) By means of this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner, Mani Ram Lohia. has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the Order dated 06.09.1980, passed by Respondent No 3 (Annexure 7 to the petition) allowing the revision of Respondent No. 1 and remanding the case to the Prescribed Authority for disposal in accordance with the directions given in provisional order.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are: The Petitioner is the owner and landlord of premises No. 68 Parwaran, Jhansi. One Shri Kishori Lai Sharma, Advocate, was a tenant in a portion of the said premises. On 13.06.1971 Sri Kishori Lai Sharma intimated to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Jhansi, that he will be vacating the portion in his occupation on 17.06.1971. However, no notice of this fact was given to the landlord (the Petitioner). Ghanshyam Dass Richariya, Respondent No. 1, who was a clerk of Sri Kishori Lai Sharma, Advocate, the out -going tenant, made an application for the allotment of the said portion. A report from the Rent Control Inspector was obtained without any knowledge to the Petitioner and the portion in dispute was allotted to Respondent No. 1 vide Order dated 15.07.1971. Pursuant to the allotment order the Respondent No. 1 obtained possession of the portion in dispute. On coming to know about the said allotment order the Petitioner filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Jhansi, for the cancellation of the allotment order on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The Petitioner also prayed for release of the disputed portion on the ground of personal need to settle his son Dr. Dhirendra Kumar. During the tendency of the said proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the Respondent No. 1 moved an application before the District Magistrate, Jhansi, for the transfer of the case from the court of Rent Control and Eviction Officer to some other court. The District Magistrate, Jhansi, thereupon transferred the case to Km. Uma Verma, Sub -Divisional Officer, Moth, Jhansi, who was also the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority, Respondent No. 4, maintained the order of allotment in favor of Respondent No. 1, and rejected the application for release made by the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority the Petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Jhansi, which was transferred for disposal to the court of Sri B.N. Srivastava, 1st Additional District Judge, Jhansi. The appeal was allowed and the allotment Order dated 15.07.1971 passed in favor of Respondent No. 1 was set aside and the matter as regards consideration of the release application was remanded to the Prescribed Authority vide judgment and Order dated 20.05.1975. Thereupon Respondent No. 1 filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 9749 of 1975 in this Court against the Order dated 20.05.1975. Along with the petition a stay application was also filed but the same was rejected by this Court on 06.05.1976. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after the case was remanded by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jhansi, released the disputed portion in favor of the Petitioner vide Order dated 21.04.1976 After the remand the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was fully competent to decide the release application of the Petitioner under Sec. 16 of the Act. Under that Sec. it is the District Magistrate or an officer authorized by him who can order release of any accommodation. While remanding the case for consideration of the release application the District Judge could not authorize the Prescribed Authority to decide the same as such power lay with the District Magistrate alone Under Sec. 16(2) of the Act. It may also be mentioned here that ultimately the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 was dismissed by this Court on 03.05.1979. The Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the Order dated 21.04.1976 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer releasing the portion in dispute in favor of the Petitioner preferred a revision to the court of the District Judge, Jhansi, which was numbered as Civil Revision No. 41 of 1976. By Order dated 06.09.1980 the Respondent No. 3, 1st Addl. District Judge, Jhansi, set aside the Order dated 21.04.1976 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer releasing the disputed portion in favour of the Petitioner. The case was again remanded to the Prescribed Authority for disposal according to law and in the light of the observations given by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Jhansi, in his judgment and Order dated 20.05.1975. The instant petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 06.09.1980 for quashing the same.
(3.) No counter -affidavit has been filed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has been heard at length. The case of the Petitioner is that Respondent No. 3, the 1st Additional District Judge, Jhansi, committed an error of law in failing to consider that Km. Uma "Verma, the Prescribed Authority, was specially authorized by the District Magistrate, Jhansi, to consider the question of release as well as the legality of the allotment order. The 1st Additional District Judge, Sri B.N. Srivastava, after canceling the allotment order had remanded the case for disposing of the release application. The case was rightly heard by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who was the competent authority to dispose of the release application as enjoined Under Sec. 16 of the Act and it cannot be said that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer acted without jurisdiction and the view taken by Respondent No. 3 that the release application ought to have been disposed of by the Prescribed Authority is manifestly erroneous and against the provisions of law. Further such a revision as contemplated by Sec. 18 of the Act was not maintainable as the unauthorized occupant, i.e. Respondent No. 1, was not a person 'aggrieved' within the meaning of the Act.;