Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The petitioner who claims to be tenant of the accommodation in question, which is non -residential accommodation, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Aligarh dated 13th August, 1997 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 19th May, 1992, whereby the shops in question were allotted in favour of respondents 3 and 4, namely, Pawan Babu alias Pawan Kumar and Sunil Kumar alias Sunil Verma.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the view taken by the Revisional Court that the amended provision of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which shall here -in -after referred to as 'the Act', which has been amended by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995, will not apply to the present controversy, is not correct in view of the law laid down by this Court in Shaheen Ara Begum (Smt.) v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Bareilly and others, : 2006 (60) ALR 556 wherein learned Single Judge of this Court dealing with the effect of amending Act has held that "since the revision was pending prior to the coming into force of the Amending Act of 1995, therefore the revision will be decided as if the Amending Act has not come into the force." On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent argued that in fact the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned order, as he claims his right of tenancy inherited by his father as stated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, whereas in the counter affidavit of Shyam Babu Verma, an affidavit of Gopi Chandra Verma i.e. father of the present petitioner has been filed to the effect that before start of the proceeding of allotment before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the tenant, namely father of the petitioner had already handed over the peaceful vacant possession to the landlord, therefore in this circumstance, the question of inheriting the tenancy does not arise and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent further submitted that this writ petition is pending since 1997 before this Court and the matter may not be remanded back only for this question.
(3.) TO me it appears that this controversy raised by learned Counsel for the contesting respondent as to whether the petitioner has locus to challenge the revisional order or not requires adjudication on facts, therefore it would be in the interest of justice that the matter may be remanded back to the revisional authority with a direction to decide the case expeditiously. In view of what has been stated above and in view of the law laid down by this Court, referred to above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 13th August, 1997, passed by the revisional authority, Annexure -'3' to the writ petition is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the revisional authority for decision afresh in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and in accordance with law. Since the matter is fairly old, the revisional authority is directed to decision the revision within a period of three months' from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before it. Learned Counsel for the parties undertaken that their clients will appear before the revisional authority along with the certified copy of this order on 27th October, 2006.;