J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) The dispute relates to shop No. 151/2, P. L. Sharma Road, Beghum Bagh, Meerut. By the order dated 27.4.1993 of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (R.C. and E.O.), the said shop was declared vacant. The landlady on 24.5.93 made an application for the release of the shop in her favour showing her need for the same. This application was kept pending for months together until the petitioner also arrived at the scene on 16.8.1998 by moving application for allotment. He contested the release application of the landlady, filed his objection and also adduced evidence and in real sense participated in the proceedings relating to the disposal of release application. By the order dated 20.3.1995 the R.C. and E.G. after taking into consideration the petitioner's objections and evidence, rejected the release application of the landlady and on the same day, he proceeded to allot the disputed shop in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the landlady challenged both the orders of the R.C. and E.O. rejecting her release application and making allotment in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 has allowed both the revision by a common judgment dated 20.8.1998 and the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner has been quashed and the shop in dispute has been released in favour of the landlady-respondent No. 3. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed seeking Issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the revisional court.
(2.) A perusal of the order impugned indicates that the revisional court has set aside the order of the R.C. and E.O. whereby the release application of the landlady was rejected, on the ground that the R.C. and E.O. acted beyond jurisdiction in taking into consideration the objection and evidence of the petitioner, whose status was simply that of a prospective allottee. !t also came to the conclusion that the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner was bad in law having been made on the same day on which the release application was rejected, which was in total disregard of Rule 9 (3) of the Rules. The R.C. and E.O. then examined the evidence available on the record and released the shop in question finding the need of the landlady to be bona fide.
(3.) The order of the R.C. and E.O. rejecting the application of release of the landlady has been set aside by the revisional court on the ground that the R.C. and E.O. committed a jurisdictional error in taking on record the objection and evidence of the petitioner and then considering the same while examining the claim of the landlady for the release of the shop in question. It cannot be doubted that the petitioner's status was that of a prospective allottee. Time and again this Court has been holding repeatedly that the prospective allottee has no locus standi to object to the claim of the landlord for the release of a vacant building because he possesses no right or interest in the property or claim against the landlord so as to confer on him a right of hearing. He neither has any right to file objections nor evidence in opposition to an application for release made under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. In the case of Talib Hasan v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital and others, 1986 ID ARC 1, a Full Bench of this Court has laid down that the prospective allottee has got no right to be heard in the proceedings for release and the matter is entirely between the R.C. and E.O. and the landlord. It was held : "The prospective allottee has also no right or interest in the property or claim against the landlord so as to be entitled to any hearing in the disposal of the release application on general principles or doctrine of audi alteram partem. The principle of audi alteram partem presupposes existence of some right or interest in the subject matter of the lis. It has already been said that the prospective allottee has no right or claim against the landlord nor any interest in the accommodation in dispute. He has, therefore, no right to be heard in opposition to an applicalion for release filed by the landlord even on the above principle.";