K.C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 or the Constitution, Shri R.K. Gupta, official Liquidator, High Court, Allahabad has challenged the validity of an order dated 22.2.1977 passed by the District Judge, Allahabad.
(2.) The dispute in the present case is with respect to a portion of House No. 33 Edmonston Road, Allahabad , which belongs to Maharaja Bahadur Lal Srivastava, respondent No. 2. This portion was admittedly in the tenancy of the State of Uttar Pradesh in which an office of the Irrigation Department was housed. After the portion was vacated by the said Department, the proceedings for its allotment were started before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Maharaja Bahadur Lal Srivastava, respondent No. 2, filed an application for the release of this portion under section 16 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") whereas several persons, including the petitioner, filed applications for its allotment. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer hold that the need of respondent No. 2 for the release of the accommodation was not genuine and bona fide. On this finding, he rejected the application for release. He, thereafter, considered the comparative merits of the claims of the applicants for allotment and having found that the need of the petitioner was more pressing than that of the others, he allowed his application and allotted the premises to him by the order passed on 9th November, 1970. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer an appeal was taken by respondent No. 2 before the District Judge. The District Judge agreed with the findings of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer so far as the question of release of the premises in favour of respondent No. 2 was concerned and thus being of the view that the premises was not required by the said respondent, the appeal of the said respondent was dismissed. The learned District Judge, however, felt that as the premises in question was one to which the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act were attracted, therefore, he set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotting the premises to the petitioner. The learned District Judge sent back the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for deciding the question of allotment afresh in the light of the observations made by him in his judgment.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved Sri R.K. Gupta has preferred the present petition.;