Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) This is a landlord's petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the order passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Sharanpur dated 21-1-1987 dismissing the revision of the petitioner landlord against the order passed by the Rent Control Eviction Officer dated 18-3-1986 be quashed. Before the writ petition was admitted the respondent No. 8 was directed to file the counter-affidavit. Counter and rejoinder have been exchanged. With the consent of the parties and as provided under the Second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, this petition is disposed of finally.
(2.) I have heard Sri K.B.L. Gaur learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.S. Nigam learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8.
(3.) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner, who is a landlord moved an application under Section 16(1) (b) for release of the accommodation in question before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Saharanpur. An application for allotment was also filed by the respondent No. 8 before the Prescribed Authority. It appears that the respondent No. 8 who was a prospective allottee filed certain documents to establish that the accommodation in dispute had fallen vacant and was available for allotment in the case relating to the application for release. The filing of the said documents was resisted by the landlord petitioner as they were filed in the case relating to release application filed by the landlord No. 8 of 1985. However, the objection raised on behalf of the landlord petitioner regarding the admissibility of the said documents did not find favour with the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and he admitted the said documents in evidence. Landlord petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred a revision purporting to be under Section 18 of the Act which was dismissed by the impugned order passed by the IInd Additional District Judge. The fact that the respondent No. 8 is a prospective allottee has not been disputed before me by the counsel for the respondent No. 8. The proposition of law that the prospective allottee cannot object the release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord after it has fallen vacant is also not disputed before me by the counsel for the parties.;