S.D.Agarwala - (1.) -This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the allotment order passed under the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
(2.) THE property in dispute is a house no. 96 (Ward No. 8), Gandhi Nagar, Bhabhangawan, Basti. It was initially in occupation of the forest department. Respondent no. 3 got the knowledge of the fact that this property was likely to fall vacant and, as such, on 16th June, 1977, he made an application for allotment of the said accommodation to him before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Basti. This application was registered on 18th June, 1977. At the time when this application was made, the landlord Rameshwar Prasad also gave his consent for allotment of the accommodation in favour of respondent no. 3, Gajendra Nath Pandey. After this application was moved by the respondent no. 3, an enquiry was conducted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, as to whether the property was vacant or not. Ultimately, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the vacancy on 3rd August, 1977. On 3rd August, 1977, Ram Milan Singh, the petitioner, who was then a Member of the Legislative Assembly, moved an application for allotment of the said accommodation. On 6th August, 1987, the property was allotted to two persons. A part of the property was allotted to the petitioner Ram Milan Singh and the other part was allotted to Sunder Lal Harijan, who was a Harijan Welfare Officer. It appears that though a part of the property was allotted to Sunder Lal also, but the petitioner took possession of the entire property, even the portion which was allotted in favour of Sunder Lal. The allotment order dated 6th August, 1977, was challenged in revision by the respondent no. 3. On 2nd August, 1978, the revision was allowed by the District Judge. The allotment order in favour of Ram Milan Singh, the petitioner, was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for considering the matter of allotment afresh. After remand, on 6th April, 1979, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer again allotted the premises in dispute in favour of the petitioner Ram Milan Singh. This order dated 6th April, 1979, was again challenged by means of a revision before the District Judge. This revision was second time allowed on 20th December, 1979, and again the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was directed to re-consider the question of allotment in respect of the property in dispute. Thereafter, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer took up the matter and by order dated 30th May, 1981, allotted the property in dispute in favour of respondent no. 3. This order dated 30th May, 1981, was challenged by the petitioner by way of a revision before the District Judge. On 21st July, 1981, the revision filed by Ram Milan Singh, the petitioner, was rejected. It is this order dated 21st July, 1981, which has been challenged in the present revision. It has been stated here that after the order dated 21st July, 1981, the respondent no. 3 took possession of the property on 23rd July, 1981.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions before me. His first contention is that the initial application for allotment, which was made by the respondent no. 3, was registered on 18th June, 1977. Since he did not renew the registration of his allotment application, as required by Rule 10 (4) of the Rules, consequently, he ceased to have any priority and, as such, the allotment order ceased in favour of the respondent no. 3 is wholly illegal.;