Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Rajeshwari Prasad and Mr. R.C. Srivastava learned Senior Counsels for the respondents. Before the admission of the writ petition a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of the parties and also as provided in the second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner claims herself to be a tenant of a portion of premises no 11/251. Souter Ganj, Kanpur, of which respondent no. 1 is the landlord. An application for release has been filed by respondent no. 2 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for release of the accommodation in dispute on the ground that the accommodation has fallen vacant and a deemed vacancy has occurred as provided under Section 12(1) (c) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner has filed objections to the aforesaid release application. She has also moved an application that a Commissioner be appointed to inspect the premises in dispute as she was aggrieved by the report of the Rent Control Inspector. It has been alleged on behalf of the respondent landlord that an application for allotment was also filed by the father of the petitioner for the same accommodation. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 6-7-1987 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for appointment of a commissioner and held that the petitioner who is a prospective allottee, has no right to contest the release application of the landlord. Mr. Rajeshwari Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, urged that the order passed by the Rent control and Eviction Officer refusing to appoint a Commissioner during the pendency of the proceedings is not a final order and the said order is not amendable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, so far as the refusal by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in appointing a Commissioner is concerned. I am not inclined to interfere at this stage. However, in case the application of the landlord for release is allowed, it will be open to the petitioner to urge this point in further proceedings that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer acted illegally in not appointing a Commissioner.
(3.) So far as the question of locus standi of the petitioner is concerned, no material has been brought to my notice at this stage which may brand her as prospective allottee. In view of the said fact I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be allowed to participate in the release application made by the respondent. The question whether the petitioner is a tenant or not shall also be open to the respondent landlord to challenge the same before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.;