R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 1.3.96, 31.7.96 and 14.1.97 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the proceedings under Sections 12 and 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for short "the Act". The facts giving rise to the present case, are that the respondent No. 1 firstly filed a suit against the petitioner for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages. Thereafter, he instituted proceeding under Section 21 of the Act said case was registered as P.A. case No. 46 of 1993 in the court of Prescribed Authority. In the meanwhile, one Om Prakash Gupta filed an application for allotment of the building in question in his favour under Section 16 of the Act. Petitioner contested the said proceedings and also applied for allotment of the building in question in his favour. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide his order dated 1.3.96 declared the building in question as vacant. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 applied for release of the building in question in his favour under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act. The application filed by respondent No. 3 was opposed by the petitioner. However, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer after rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner released the building in question vide his order dated 31.7.96. Petitioner aggrieved by the order of release passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, filed a revision before the Revisional Authority under Section 18 of the Act. The Revisional Authority dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. Petitioner, thereafter, filed the present petition challenging the validity of the orders passed by the authorities below, referred to above.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order declaring the vacancy and thereafter, releasing the building in question was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It has also been urged that the Revisional Authority has erred in law in holding that the revision filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no vacancy in the building in question, therefore, there was no justification to decide the same vacant or to release it in favour of respondent No. 3. I have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(3.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner has got no order of allotment in his favour. The occupation of a building, which is covered by the provisions of the Act, without order of allotment is prohibited under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act. Therefore, the occupation of the petitioner over the building in question was unauthorised and illegal as a ruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Nutun Kumar v. IInd Additional District Judge, Banda, 1993 (22) ALR 437 (FB).;