S.D. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the District Judge, Etawah dated 4 -11 -1978 rejecting the application of the Petitioner to be impleaded as a party to the revision.
(2.) THE Petitioner is a prospective allottee. After the vacancy was notified the Petitioner applied for allotment but before the allotment could be made the landlady applied for release Under Section 16 of the Act. The Petitioner contested the release application and it was after contest that the Prescribed Authority rejected the release application. The landlady filed a revision in the court of the Distt. Judge but did not implead the Petitioner as a party. The Petitioner was, therefore, compelled to move an application for being impleaded as a party. This application was rejected on 4 -11 -1978. Aggrieved the present petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the view taken by the District Judge that the Petitioner -prospective allottee has no right to be heard is manifestly erroneous in law.
(3.) RULE 13(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, was as follows: Every application under Section 16(1)(b) shall be a matter between the District Magistrate and the landlord and the outgoing tenant or the prospective allottee, if any, shall have no right to file any objection against it.;