Murlidhar, J. - (1.) This is a landlord's petition under Article 226 of Constitution for a writ of certiorari quashing the order, dated 28-5-77 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer against which order a revision was dismissed by the District Judge on 2-9-1977.
(2.) The brief relevant facts are these: The Petitioner is a landlord of the building in question. Admittedly, Respondent No. 2 Shankar Lal is a tenant in these premises at Rs. 80/- per month since 1966. It is common ground that Respondent No. 2 is in possession of a shop. The controversy is about a gallery room and underground cellar. According to the landlord these were not part of Respondent's tenancy premises and had never been in his occupation till he took forcible possession on 3-4-76 about which a police report had been lodged. The tenant appears to have filed a civil suit and obtained a temporary injunction. On 1-6-76 he also applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allotment of the premises to him. The landlord filed an objection. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after considering the evidence on behalf of the parties held that the Respondent was in possession of the shop and the disputed premises as a tenant. Thereafter, he posed the question whether the premises should be allotted or the Respondents' possession be regularised. He found that the shop and the premises were not vacant and, therefore, it was not proper to consider allotment. Further holding that the case was covered by Section 14 Act No. XIII of 1972, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order declaring that the occupation of a shop and other premises by the Respondent No. 2 stood regularised under Section 14. In revision the District Judge noted that no revision lay against a declaration that possession stood regularised under Section 14. The District Judge further observed that the Respondent's prayer for allotment having been virtually rejected no revision lay by the Petitioner from the order as an order passed on application of allotment. The District Judge also observed that the Petitioner has no reason to be aggrieved by the said order because this order was not immune from challenge under Section 37 of the Act and could be re-agitated in the civil court where a suit was already pending.
(3.) By this writ petition the Petitioner has challenged the order of regularisation of tenancy by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. He concedes that a revision did not lie and, therefore, the District Judge rightly dismissed the revision. The Learned Counsel stated that the Petitioner's apprehension is that this order of regularisation may prejudice the Petitioner in the civil dispute with the Respondent because the Respondent will rely on this order and claim immunity from challenge for it under Section 37 of the Act. It is urged that since the law does not contemplate passing of any order for regularisation under Section 14, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer should have stopped at rejecting the prayer for allotment and not gone on to specifically pass an order of regularisation. The order is said to be illegal and liable to be struck down.;