- (1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. The reliefs in the two writ petitions though apparently not similar, the questions involved being the same, these have been heard together at admission stage, and are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE dispute in these petitions relates to premises No. 5 Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Allahabad, of which the petitioner was a tenant. Applications for allotment of the building in question being moved before the R. C. and E. O. on the ground of deemed vacancy under Section 12 (3) of Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on account of the petitioner-tenant having constructed another house, the R. C. and E. O. after necessary inquiry, by his order dated 29-2-1980 declared the building to be vacant. Subsequently, by his order dated 30-1-1981 the R. C. and E. O. allotted the building in favour of the respondent No. 3 under Section 16 of the Act. THE petitioner thereupon filed a revision under Section 18 of the Act, being Rent Control Revision No. 85 of 1981, before the District Judge, Allahabad on various grounds, including non-existence of vacancy, lack of jurisdiction of the incumbent R. C. and E. O. to adjudicate the matter and wrong exercise of jurisdiction in making allotment in favour of the respondent. THE District Judge by his order dated 6-5-1982 allowed the revision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction with Shri K. M. Pandey, the concerned R. C. and E. O. , to decide the matter, and remanded the case to another Rent Control and Eviction Officer, named, Brijendra Singh, to consider and decide the question of allotment, after hearing the various applicants for allotment, in accordance with law. On a writ petition (No. 8576 of 1982) preferred by the respondent No; 3, this Court by its order dated 30-11-1994 quashed the order of the District Judge, holding that Shri K. M. Pandey, the then R. C. and E. O. , who passed the order dated 30-1-1981, was duly appointed by. the District Magistrate under Section 3 (C) to exercise the powers under the Act ft was also held by this Court that as far as the declaration of vacancy by order dated 29-2-1980 of the R. C. and E. O. is concerned, the same not having been challenged by means of a writ petition, has become final. This Court accordingly, directed the District Judge to decide the revision on merits in accord ance with law. The petitioner filed a special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the order dated 30-11-1994 which was later withdrawn and was dis missed by the Supreme Court on 8-3-1995. On a review application being preferred by the petitioner, for deleting the observations regarding the declaration of vacancy having become final, this Court by its order dated 28-11-1995, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ganpat Roy and others v. Additional District Magistrate and others, reported in 1985 (2) Allahabad Rent Cases 73, declined the said review application.
(3.) THE petitioner filed writ petition No. 371003 of 1995, in effect, containing the same prayer which was declined in the review proceedings, to the effect that the District Judge be commanded by a writ of mandamus to decide the Rent Revision No. 85 of 1981 in accordance with the law prevalent at the time of passing of the impugned order of the R. C. and E. O. , ignoring the law subsequently declared by the apex Court in Ganpat Roy's case (supra ). While the Writ Petition No. 37003 of 1995 was so pending admission, the District Judge, Allahabad by his order dated 13-3-1996 heard and dismissed the Rent Control Revision No. 85 of 1981 and other connected Revisions, upholding the order of allotment dated 30-1-1981 in favour of the respondent No. 3. The Writ Petition No. 9706 of 1996 is directed against the same, inter alia, on the ground of the declaration of vacancy dated 29-2-1980 being unsustainable on facts and in law, lack of authority in Shri K. M. Pandey, the R. C. and E. O. concerned, to decide the matters relating to the premises in question, the matter relating to the declaration of vacancy being not governed by the law laid down in Ganpat Roy's case (supra) in view of the earlier declaration of law by the apex Court in Trilok Singh and Company v. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others, A. I. R. 1976 S. C. 1988, and the impugned order of allotment being unsustainable.;