K. C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS petition challenges the validity of an order of the District Judge Kanpur dated 8-10- 1975. By this order the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground that it was incompetent.
(2.) THE dispute, is in respect of house No 95/117 consisting of two rooms in the first floor. An application for its allotment was filed by respondent No. 1. THE application was contested by the petitioner. He denied that there was any vacancy. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the house was vacant and further allotted the same to respondent No. 1 on 14-8[1974. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge. It was accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer which reads as under :- "Allotted to Sri Ashok Kumar Bajpai, Cat. A. Sd. Illegible R.C.E.O. 14-8-1973" An objection was raised on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the appeal filed by the petitioner was incompetent inasmuch as the same was not filed along with a copy of the allotment order which had been issued in form B. The objection prevailed and the appeal was dismissed. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I find that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge suffers from a mainfest error and is thus liable to be set aside. Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Act lays down that every appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant and his counsel, if any. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 provides that every memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against. In the instant case, the petitioner had filed a copy of the order made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The appellate authority however found that as the allotment order contemplated by Section 16 (1) (a) read with Rule 12, is the order issued in form B, the appeal filed without form B, was incompetent. In my opinion, the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge suffers from the defect of hyper technicality and does not achieve the object of Rule 7 (3). The requirement of Rule 7 (3) is the filing of a copy of the order appealed against. By an order passed on the file, the premises is allotted to an applicant for allotment. This is followed by a ministerial act of issuing the order in form B. The columns left blank in the prescribed form, are filled in and communicated to the persons concerned. The main object of issuing the allotment order in Form B is to intimate to the landlord about the order and to direct him deliver possession to the allottee. The order issued in the prescribed form would not give the reasons for making the allotment. Consequently, the appellate court would be unable to know the reasons for the order passed. That also appears to be the ground that Rule 7 (3) requires the filing of the copy of the order passed on the file.
(3.) THAT apart, it appears to me that since the filing of a copy of either of the two would meet the requirement of Rule 7 (3), the appeal should not have been dismissed. To say the least, the language employed in Rule 7 (3) is capable of including both the orders. Hence,' filing of either of the two was sufficient. For these reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Additional District Judge dated 8-10-1975 is quashed and the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh on merits. Since no one appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.;