Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) BOTH these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment, as jointly agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties. No separate argument was advanced in Writ Petition No. 3826 of 1999 and it was agreed that decision given in Writ Petition No. 13096 of 1997 will decide fate of the Writ Petition No. 3826 of 1999. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13096 of 1997 This is landlord's writ petition. House No. 105/724 -A, Anand Bagh, Kanpur Nagar was owned by six persons. A partition took place on 28th of October, 1987 and the property in dispute fell in exclusive share of the petitioner. Three rooms situate on the ground floor in the portion which fell in the share of the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of Lal Bahadur Singh, respondent No. 3 herein. The landlady who was aged about 70 years at that time residing on the second floor in one room being a heart patient and who has got an unemployed son, requested the respondent No. 3 to vacate the disputed accommodation as he was an unauthorized occupant. The respondent No. 3 instead of vacating the accommodation filed an application for allotment. The petitioner as soon as he came to know about the allotment proceedings applied for release of the said accommodation under section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Proceedings for declaring vacancy, release and allotment were, thus, set in motion.
(2.) THE said accommodation was declared vacant by the order dated 22nd of January, 1996 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The vacancy order attained finality as it was not challenged by the respondent No. 3, the unauthorized occupant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer then considered the release application filed by the petitioner. He invited objection and the respondent No. 3, unauthorized occupant filed reply to the release application disputing the need of the landlady on various grounds. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated February, 1996 rejected the release application and simultaneously by the said order allotted the same in favour of the respondent No. 3, in Case No. 4 of 1996. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Rent Revision No. 18 of 1996 which has been allowed in part by the impugned order whereby the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejecting the release application has been confirmed but the allotment made in favour of respondent No. 3 has been set aside and the matter has been restored back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for reconsideration of the allotment application. The said order is under challenge at the instance of the landlady in the present writ petition.
(3.) THE main plank of the argument of Shri A.N. Sinha, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the release proceedings under section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is a matter between the landlord and the District Magistrate. The outgoing tenant, unauthorized occupant on an application for allotment or any other person whosoever he may be, has no right to intervene in between and oppose the release application. In other words, he submits that two Courts below committed illegality in taking into account the objections filed by the respondent No. 3, the unauthorized occupant. He further submits that in proceedings under section 16(1)(b) of the Act, the extent of accommodation in possession of a landlord is wholly irrelevant. The only point for consideration in such matters is to determine that the application is made in good faith.;