D.S. Bajpai, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for review filed by applicant, Rajiv Misra, praying for recalling the order dated 14 May, 1986 passed on C.M. Application No. 8744 of 1985 in Writ Petition No. 3342 of 1985 in which the applicant had prayed for being impleaded as a party to the writ petition. The said application was rejected on consideration of the fact that simply because one applicant was the first person to move for allotment of the premise) In dispute, he could not be deemed to be a proper much less a necessary party not being Impleaded in the writ petition I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit as also the affidavits exchanged in the writ petition. Since the respondents are duly served in the review application, I have proceeded to dispose of the review application finally instead of formally admitting it for hearing. I find that in the aforementioned writ petition the petitioner, Ajaya Garg has challenged the order dated 15 March, 1985 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), Lucknow, the Prescribed Authority, under U.P. Act XIII of 1972 declaring the premises in dispute vacant.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant has contended that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kanti Khare v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1982 A.R.C. 894, the expression "Parties" used in rule 27 and rule 8(2) could not be confined only to landlord, tenant and occupier, but it has to be given its natural meaning which, as held by the Court, should include a person applying for allotment as well. It was on this basis that this Court held that the term "parties" used in rule 27 and rule 8(2) had to be given its natural meaning which should, in fact, include a person applying for allotment also. The Court held - - Justice cannot be done in the case of deemed vacancy if the person applying for allotment is not heard. The case in hand is a case of deemed vacancy having been declared by the Prescribed Authority and this order declaring the vacancy has been assailed in the writ petition. The fact that proceedings under Sec. 12 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 were initiated at the instance of the applicant can also be not lost sight of and I find substance in the contention of the learned Counsel that the applicant is a proper party to be impleaded as an opposite -party in the writ petition since it may be necessary to hear him before the Court records a verdict on the validity and legality of the impugned order or otherwise.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent -petitioner tried to make out a distinction in the proceedings under rule 8(2) and rule 27 and the proceedings challenged in the writ petition. The contention of the learned Counsel however, has no force inasmuch as rule 8(2) deals with the inspection of a building in ascertaining the vacancy or a deemed vacancy under section 12, 16 and/or 34(8). That is also the position under rule 27. The instant writ petition being continuation of proceedings under Section 12, it appears that the order passed earlier rejecting the application for impleadment moved by the applicant was not passed in the light of the decision rendered by this court in Smt. Kinti Khare v. IIIrd Additional District Judge Allahabad and others (supra) as also on a consideration of the relevant rules which were not placed before the Court. I, therefore, allow the review petition and recall the order dated 14 May, 1986 passed on. C.M. Application No. 8744 of 1985 in Writ Petition No. 3342 of 1985 and allow the said application for impleadment and direct the petitioner to implead the applicant, Rajiv Misra, as opposite -party No. 3 to the said writ petition.;