- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. Heard petitioner's Counsel, Sri Yasharth and Sri R. N. Bhalla Counsel appearing for the landlords- respondents No. 4 to 7.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 29-8-97 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar making an order of release in favour of the respondents-landlords. Revision filed against the said order has also been dismissed by respondent No. 2 by the order dated 17-12-97 passed by Sri M. C. Jain, District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. By the same judgment the connected revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed which challenged the order of the Rent Control Officer allowing review application of the landlords. It would be a waste of time to narrate the facts as they have already been detailed in the order of the revisional court, whose copy has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. As per the finding recorded by the Courts below it was fully established that an application for release moved on behalf of the landlords was already pending before the Rent Control and Eviction Of ficer when the order of allotment was made in favour of the present petitioner. The said application bore the endorse ment of the then Rent Control and Evic tion Officer to the effect, "register, S. I. please inquire and report by 24-12-77" and the said endorsement was signed by the officer on 26-11-77. The allotment order after declaration of vacancy was made in favour of the petitioner on 29-8-79. The landlady filed a review application under Section 16 (5) of the Act but the same was dismissed on 22-12-81 against which Rent Revision No. 6/92 was filed. The said revision was allowed by the order dated 25-11-83 and case was remanded back to the R. C. and E. O. for a fresh decision. A writ petition was filed before this Court against the aforesaid order of remand but the said writ petition was ultimately dis-, missed by this Court.
(3.) THE Rent Control Officer as well as the revisional court have concluded that since the release application of the landlords was already pending for disposal before the R. C. and E. O. , he could not assume jurisdiction of making an order of allotment in favour of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out that this view of the Courts below is against law. On the contrary the view taken in absolutely legal. For this proposition of law a reference may be had to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Talib Hasan \. 1st Addl. District Judge, Nainital, 1986 (1) ARC 1. In a recent decision in Swaroop Narain Srivastava v. Vth Additionaldistrict Judge, JT 1994 (5) SC 221, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is nowhere provided either in the Act or in the Rules that an application for allotment of a vacant building should be considered in preference to the application made for release by the landlord. On the other hand Rule 13 which provides the procedure for consideration of application for release of a vacant building by the landlord, by its sub-rule (4) requires that landlord's ap plication for release under the Rules shall, as far as possible, be decided within one month from the date of its presentation and no allotment in respect of a building covered by an application in that rule shall be made unless such application has been rejected.;