N.D. Ojha, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the landlord of an accommodation of which one Aftab Ahmad Khan was the tenant. It transpires that Aftab Ahmad Khan was transferred to Unao. Thereafter applications were made for the allotment of the said accommodation one such application was mode by respondent No. 3. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer required the Inspector of his department to make a local inspection and submit a report. A report was submitted by the Inspector informing the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the tenant Aftab Ahmad Khan had vacated the accommodation and that it would he deemed to be vacant and available for allotment. On the receipt of the report of the Inspector persons concerned were given notice to file objection, if any. From the order of the additional District Judge as also from paragraph 4 of the writ petition it is apparent that even the petitioner was given such a notice. The petitioner in place of making any application for release in his favour on the ground that the accommodation was needed by him, took up the case that it was not at all vacant. He, however, did not file any objection but supported the objection filed by the Jawad Hasan Khan who claimed to be the brother-in-law of the erstwhile tenant Aftab Ahmad Khan. According to Jawad Hasan Khan he was occupying the accommodation and as such it cannot be deemed to be vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not agree with the objection raised by Jawad Haan Khan which was supported by the petitioner and passed an order of allotment in favour of respondent No. 3 on 20th December 1972. Thereafter the petitioner made an application, a copy of which Annexure II to the writ petition on 2nd of January, 1973, reiterating his earlier stand that the accommodation in question was not vacant. In the alternative he prayed that the accommodation in question be released in his favour. He also made a second application on 23rd October 1973, with a specific prayer for cancellation of the order of allotment passed in favour of respondent No. 3. This application was really in the nature of are view application under section 16(5) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The case of the petitioner was that the order of allotment had been procured by respondent No. 3 by practising fraud on the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The fraud, which according to the petitioner was perpetrated on the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, was that respondent No. 3 was actually occupying another accommodation as a tenant but in the application for allotment he made a statement that he was occupying the accommodation as a guest or the landlord, one Shri Khurana, Rent Control and Eviction Officer after considering the material placed by the petitioner in support of his application dated 2nd January, 1973, came to the conclusion that no fraud had been practised by respondent No. 3 in obtaining the order of allotment. The application dated 2nd January, 1973, was accordingly dismissed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer also stated in his order that the need of the landlord is not made out. The order is dated November 11h, 1974. Against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer an appeal was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the IVth Additional District Judge on January 25, 1975. It is these orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Additional District Judge which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
(2.) It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the order of allotment passed in favour of respondent No. 3 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was without jurisdiction inasmuch as he had passed the said order without disposing of the application filed by the petitioner for release of the said accommodation. This argument was apparently based on the facts stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition. During the course of arguments counsel had, however, to concede that no application for release had been made by the petitioner before the order of allotment dated December 20, 1972, was passed in favour of respondent No. 3. The submission made by counsel, therefore, is misconceived.
(3.) In so far as the impugned orders are concerned no such other error has been brought to my notice which may justify these orders being quashed in a writ petition. As seen above, the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated November 11, 1974 had been passed in proceedings under section 16(5) of the Act aforesaid. The said sub-section is inter alia to the effect that where the landlord of a building comprised in an order of allotment satisfied the District Magistrate that such an order was not made in accordance with clause (a) of section 16(1) the District Magistrate may review the order. As such, at the instance of the petitioner, who was the landlord, 1 the order of allotment passed in favour of respondent No. 3 could be reviewed only if he was able to satisfy the District Magistrate as aforesaid. The petitioner has failed to substantiate that the order of allotment had not been made in accordance with clause (a) of section 16(1). The only ground which was passed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Additional District Judge in support of the submission that the order of allotment had not been made in accordance with clause (a) and which has been negatived by them was that the said order had been obtained by fraud.;