Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority allotting the building to opposite party No. 3 under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and against the order passed in revision by the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. The Petitioner No. 1 had applied for allotment after obtaining the consent of the landlord who is Petitioner No. 2, thereafter opposite party No. 3 also made an application for allotment. The Prescribed Authority held that the need of opposite party No. 3 was greater than the need of Petitioner No. 1 whom he took as already occupying accommodation at 11, Shahnajaf Road, Lucknow. About opposite party No. 3 the Prescribed Authority mentioned that during arguments he had urged that he was living with a relation who wanted him to go away. With these observations, the allotment order was made in favour of opposite party No. 3.
(2.) THREE revisions were preferred before the District Judge. One was filed by the outgoing tenant on the allegation that he was stilt in possession and there was no vacancy. The other was filed by the landlord as his nominee had not been allotted the accommodation. The third was filed by the Petitioner No. 1 who was claiming the allotment. The learned District Judge has dismissed all the three revisions. The outgoing tenant has not challenged the order. The landlord Petitioners No. 2 cannot be deemed to be an aggrieved person as no legal right of his can be deemed to be effected. The writ petition has, therefore, to be considered only on behalf of Petitioner No. 1. The learned District Judge while dealing with the Petitioner's revision has only considered the omission in the application of both the parties, viz., Petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 3, in not mentioning the place of their residence on the date of the application in the column meant for that purpose. He held that both were equally guilty of concealing facts and, therefore, dismissed the revision.
(3.) THE question before the District Judge was whether the Prescribed Authority had exercised the jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity and the revision could not have been dismissed merely on the ground that both the parties had concealed the fact regarding their addresses on the date of the application.;