K.C.AGRAWAL,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an order of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, dated February, 18, 1978, rejecting a revision filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
(2.) HOUSE No. 12/1A, Beli Road, Allahabad belongs to one S. V. Deva. It had been let out to a tenant who vacated the same in May 1975. After the house was vacated by the then tenant, Sri Harish Chandra Dwivedi, the peti­tioner, forcibly occupied the house in May 1975, itself. After the house was occupied, the landlord sent an intimation to the Rent Control and Eviction Offi­cer about its vacancy. It was thereafter that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer got an enquiry made and notified the vacancy. After the vacancy was notified, the petitioner applied for allotment on 10.6.1975. Chandra Bhushan Bhargava, respondent No. 3, also made an application for allotment of the house on 13.6.1975. On December 8, 1977, the Rent Control and Eviction Offi­cer dismissed the allotment application of the petitioner and allotted the premises to respondent No. 3. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner pre­ferred a revision to the District Judge. The revision was also dismissed. Hence, the present petition. Two grounds were given by the revisional court for dismissing the revi­sion. The first ground was that as the respondent No. 3 was an applicant, having filed an application for allotment before the petitioner, the application of the respondent No. 3 had to be considered first under Rule 11 of the Rules framed under U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The second ground was that as the petitioner was a trespasser having taken possession forcibly in May 1975, his application for allotment could not be considered because of the prohibi­tion contained in Rule 10 (5) (d) of the Rules.
(3.) SRI R. A. Sharma, counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the learned Additional District Judge committed an error in holding that the application filed by the respondent No. was prior in time. He submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had misread the evidence in recording the said finding against the petitioner. As I intend to uphold the order of the learned Additional District Judge on the second point, I do not wish to enter into the first point.;