ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Dinesh Kumar, who is applicant for allot­ment of the accommodation in dispute, which is covered by the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after referred to as 'the Act', challenges the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Muzaffarnagar dated 15th December, 2004 and 19th October, 2005, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure Nos. '13' and '15', respective­ly to the writ petition.
(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are that Smt. Suman Goel, wife of Sudhir Kumar was the landlord, who entered into a registered agreement with regard to sale of the accommoda­tion in dispute with Smt. Punam Goel, wife of Purshottam Kumar. The then tenant Satyapal Tyagi has vacated the accommodation, which is in dispute. The petitioner filed an application for al­lotment of the accommodation in dispute on the ground that there is a vacancy and he is in need of the aforesaid accommodation, therefore, the same may be allotted to him. On the basis of the aforesaid application for al­lotment filed by the petitioner, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued notices to all the parties, inviting their objections, if any Smt. Suman Goel filed her objection stating the facts referred to above. She has further asserted that pursuant to the agreement to sale with Smt. Punam Goel, the possession has been delivered to her, who is in posses­sion of the accommodation in dispute. Thus there is no vacancy, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner for al­lotment of the accommodation in dis­pute is liable to be rejected. Smt. Punam Goel in her objection stated that there is a registered agreement to sale for the accommodation in dispute with Smt Suman Goel and that she has been delivered possession pursuant to the aforesaid agreement to sale. She also asserted that there is no vacancy and the application for allotment is li­able to be rejected. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 15th Decem­ber, 2004 found that in fact there is a vacancy with regard to the accom­modation in dispute and directed the vacancy to be notified. Smt. Punam Goel. After the order dated 15th Decem­ber, 2004, Smt. Punam Goel filed an ap­plication that if there is vacancy, the ac­commodation in dispute may be released in her favour. The petitioner filed a review application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as Contemplated under Section 16 (5) of 'the Act' seeking review of the order dated 15th December, 2004. During the pendency of the review application, Smt. Punam Goel filed an affidavit to the effect that she has become the owner of the accommodation in dispute by virtue of the registered sale deed duly ex­ecuted by Smt. Suman Goel. Smt. Punam Goel also filed an application for release of the accommodation in her favour as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found by his order dated 15th December, 2004 that there is a vacancy in the accommodation in dispute. This statement of Smt. Punam Goel has been denied by the petitioner, who nad filed a review application and it is as­serted by the petitioner that in fact Smt. Suman Goel and Smt. Punam Goel belongs the same family and are in hand and gloves, in order to defeat the purpose of the petitioner's application. The petitioner further asserted that pur­suant to the declaration of vacancy, the same ought to have been allotted in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer after hearing learned Counsel for the parties found that the order declaring the vacancy has not been challenged by any party, therefore, that order has become final. After the order declaring vacancy has become final, Smt. Punam Goel, who is now admittedly owner and landlord of the accommodation in dispute, has filed the release application with the prayer that the same may be released in her favour for her personal need. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has also recorded finding that in the matter of release of the accommodation in dispute, since the law is settled that prospective allot­tee cannot Object the consideration of release application. Thus, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that there is no ground for review of the order dated 15th December, 2004 and .since the factum of vacancy has not been denied by any party, therefore, he has to proceed with the case as if there is a vacancy in the accommodation in dispute. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer further taken a view that in view of the fact that the release application has been filed by the landlord, the ap­plication for allotment shall not be con­sidered, unless the release application is rejected. This finding of Rent Control and Eviction Officer though challenged by the petitioner by means of this wrt petition, but the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is sup­ported by a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1986 (1) ARC 1, Talib Hasan and Anr. v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital and Ors. On the question of merits of the release application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the landlord Smt. Punam Goel has made out a case for release of the accommodation in depute, therefore, directed for release of the same in her favour.;