Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) In this case counter and rejoinder affidavit 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 at the admission stage.
(2.) By the impugned order dated 6-4-1987 the 1st Additional District Judge, Mathura has set aside the order dated 1-2-1983 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura refusing to release the accommodation in favour of the landlord respondent and holding that the petitioner's tenancy was regularised under Section 14 of the Act. The view taken by the Revisional Court that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer should have first decided the release application and thereafter should have gone into the question of vacancy, is erroneous and cannot be sustained. In my opinion the said contention is legally tenable.
(3.) The question whether the release application filed by the landlord should be allowed or not, will depend on the fact whether accommodation has fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant and until and unless the accommodation is vacant or likely to fall relevant the question of release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord does not arise.;