J.C.GUPTA, J. - (1.) IN this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the authority of the respondent No. 2 (the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar) for making an order of allotment dated 6-10-93 in favour of the respondent No. 3 by ignoring the nomination made by the landlord in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The order of respondent No. 1 dated 22-1 -96 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act is also under challenge in this writ petition.
(2.) SOME material facts relevant for the purposes of this writ petition may be stated in brief. The dispute between the parties relates to a shop situated on the ground floor of premises No. 128/38,'F Block Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. One Faiyaz Ahmad was undisputedly tenant in the said shop. Since he was likely to vacate to the shop, the landlord sent intimation of ex­pected vacancy to the respondent No. 2 through his application dated 19-11-90. On the basis of this, Rent Control Inspec­tor made inspection of the site and sub­mitted his report on 4-12-90. It may be stated here that when the Rent Control Inspector, during the time of inspection, contacted the landlord, the later gave statement that Faiyaz Ahmad, tenant was not carrying on any business for the last one year and he was likely to vacate the shop within one week. He further dis­closed that he has nominated the petitioner for allotment. The inspection was made on 1-12-90. The report of the Inspector was also to the effect that Faiyaz Ahmad likely to vacate the shop in near future. On 10-12-90 the landlord through his counsel also gave an application to the respondent No. 2 intimating him that his nominee for allotment was the petitioner and shop be allotted to him. It may further be mentioned here that the petitioner and two other persons also moved applications for allotment and undisputedly the petitioner's application dated 19-11-90 was first in point of time and was registered at serial No. 1, while the application of respondent No. 3 was received by respon­dent No.2on4-l-91. Ignoring the nomina­tion of the landlord made in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 made the impugned order of allotment on 6-10-93 in favour of respondent No. 3.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioner before the respondents as well as before this Court has been that the impugned order of allotment has been made in total disregard of the provisions of Section 17 (I) of the Act and is illegal and without jurisdiction.;