N.N.Mithal - (1.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner wants to challenge the order passed by the revisional court on the ground that as a prospective allottee he was not permitted to oppose the revision as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Talib Hasan v. 1st Addl. District Judge, Nainital, 1985 AWC 1001 that : " The rights of prospective allottees to have his application for allotment considered, hence, arises only after the rejection of the landlord's application ".
(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this bar does not apply after rejection of the release application. According to him, after rejection of the release application a right accrues to the prospective allottee and as such when a revision against the order of rejection is filed by the landlord the prospective allottee will have a right to oppose the same. THE Full Bench has held that : " THE prospective allottee has also no right or interest in the property of 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 fact that the revision has been filed by the landlord against the rejection of the release application only signifies that the matter as it was pending before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in the same state has come before the revisional court. If the prospective allottee was not entitled to file any objection or was not entitled to be heard while the release application was being considered the same position will continue in the revisional court also and no better right can be claimed by the prospective allottee. That being the position the petitioner cannot be allowed to contend that he had acquired the right to be heard in the revision after the rejection of the release application. The only right that accrues to the prospective allottee is to have his application of release considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. That situation has not yet reached in the instant case. The position may have been different if during the pendency of the revision some allotment order had been passed in favour of the petitioner. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case it cannot be said that the petitioner had a right of being heard in opposition to the revision. Thus I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.;