ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, an allottee of the accommodation in dispute, aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional authority dated 22nd October 2005 whereby the revisional authority allowed the revision filed by the landlord against the order rejecting the release application filed by the landlord and directing release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE brief facts are that the respondent-landlord filed an application for release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord consequent to vacancy declared in the accommodation in question. This release application has been rejected by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer by its order dated 18th August 2005 whereby direction was given to proceed with the allotment of the accommodation in accordance with law. The landlord-respondent aggrieved by this order dated 18th August 2005 filed a revision i.e. Rent Revision No.41 of 2005 before the revisional authority. During the pendency of revision it appears that the accommodation in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner and as per assertions made by the petitioner, the petitioner occupied the accommodation in question. The revision against the order dated 18th August 2005 was ultimately allowed by the revisional authority by its order dated 22nd October 2005 whereby the accommodation in question was directed to be released in favour of the landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not a party to the revision, therefore, any order that has been passed by the revisional authority is not binding on him. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was not a party to the revision, the order allowing the revision and directing the release of the accommodation has been passed without hearing the petitioner is in contravention of the principles of natural justice.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 2002 ACJ 1043, Smt. Satyawati and others vs. Prescribed Authority, Etawah and others, wherein this Court has held that an order directing to proceed exparte is prejudicial to petitioner's interest, therefore, the order was set aside by this Court. In my opinion the aforesaid ratio laid down by this Court in the above decision do not apply in the present case. In the present case the allotment order was passed in favour of the petitioner which is a consequential order to the order passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer rejecting the release application filed by the landlord.;