R.R. Misra, J. - (1.) The relief prayed for by means of this writ petition is to quash the order dated 24th June, 1986, passed by District Judge, Faizabad in a revision filed by the petitioner wherein the revision was dismissed summarily at the admission stage.
(2.) From the facts as they appear from the record opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 are the landlords of the premises. They had purchased the premises in question and thereafter applied for release of the premises. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to a shop on the ground-floor. The petitioner is a tenant in possession of a residential portion of the said premises on the first floor but he has got nothing to do with the shop in question nor admittedly he is in possession of the shop in dispute. The release application was made on behalf of the landlords as early as on 3rd November, 1982. The petitioner made the application for allotment of the said shop and used to contest various orders at different stages or different Courts. Ultimately by the impugned order the District Judge, Faizabad, relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Talib Husain and another v. The 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital and others, reported in 1986 ALJ 845 : 1986 (1) ARC 1 (FB) , has taken the view that in case release application by the landlords is pending other person cannot be considered for allotment of the said accommodation. The other view taken by the District Judge in the impugned order is that the order in question is not final order within the meaning of Section 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and as such no revision was maintainable.
(3.) I have perused the writ petition as well as the counter-affidavit. The petitioner has admittedly in the present case not sought any relief against the order dated 16th June, 1986, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer against which the above revision was filed before the District Judge. Further, in my opinion the controversy involved in present case is covered squarely by the aforesaid Full Bench decision and there is no error of law involved in the impugned order passed by the District Judge.;