S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) BEFORE admission notices were issued. Respondent No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against two orders passed by the revisional court dated 17-4-1986. The property in dispute is a residential property. Since there was a vacancy, respondent No. 2 applied for release of the accommodation. The petitioner made an application for allotment of the accommodation. The District Supply Officer, Meerut rejected the release application and thereafter allotted the premises in question to the petitioner. The release application was rejected on 12-10-1983 and on the same day the property was allotted to the petitioner. Aggrieved against both these orders dated 12-10-1983 the landlord bled two revisions being revision Nos. 518 of 1983 and 519 of 1983 in the court of District Judge, Meerut. Both these revisions came up for hearing before the Vllth Addl. District Judge, Meerut who by separate orders allowed both the revisions and remanded the matter to the District Supply Officer, Meerut with a further direction to him to return the applications of the applicants for presentation to the proper court. These orders were passed on 17th April, 1986 which have been impugned in the present petition. I have perused the orders passed by the District Supply Officer, Meerut. In the order there is no specific mention about the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner, but in any case the counter affidavit was on record and it does appear that it must have had its own effect when the Prescribed Authority heard the matter. In Talib Husain v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital, 1985 AWC 1001 FB a Full Bench of this court has held that the prospective allottee has no right to file objection against the release application. In view of this dictum of the court, the petitioner who was a prospective allottee could not have filed the counter affidavit to the release application and he was wrongly permitted to do so. The counter affidavit consequently cannot be considered while considering the release application of the landlord-respondent.
(3.) THE revisional court had, infact, mainly remanded the case because he was of the opinion that the District Supply Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the case as the rent of the premises in dispute was more than Rs. 50/- per mensem In this connection it is not disputed that the District Supply Officer, Meerut was authorised to decide the cases of properties which had rental value upto Rs. 50/- per mensem. THE property having rental value of more than Rs. 50/- per mensem were to be decided by the Additional District Magistrate according to the authorisation made by the District Magistrate, Meerut. In the instant case, however, in the petition annexure-1, an order has been filed wherein the District Magistrate while considering the transfer application moved by the petitioner had categorically directed the District Supply Officer to decide this case even if he comes to the conclusion that the rent of the property in question was more than Rs. 50/- per mensem.;