VIJAY KUMAR SONKAR Vs. IN CHARGE DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ss. (1 and (2 of Section 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 provide as follows:

(2.) The distinction between the two orders envisaged in Ss. (1 is well marked. In the case of an allotment order the result is brought about by a dialogue between the prospective tenant and the District Magistrate, thereafter, under whose orders the landlord is required to let any building to the prospective tenant. On the other hand in the case of a release order the dialogue takes place between the District Magistrate and the landlord and the prospective tenant does not figure in it at all. The allotment order and the release order, as the case may be, being mutually exclusive, have separate areas of operation permitting no encroachment of one over the other. The mere fact that the focal point is the District Magistrate from whom flow therespective orders is of no consequence. It is on this understanding of the law that the High court relying on its full bench decision in the case of Talib Husain v. 1st Additional District Judge rejected the prayer of the prospective tenant that he had a right to be heard in a release application of the landlord based as it was on the provisions of Ss. (2 of Section 16 on ground of bona fide requirement. On the allowing of the release application the premises in question ceased to be allotable and since the District Magistrate, thereafter would have no jurisdiction to make an allotment thereof the prospective tenant consequently has no right to resist the landlord in release proceedings. The view of the High court seems to us to be correct in the circumstances of the case as also in law because as of today no allotment order subsists in favour of the appellant and yet he continues to be in possession. The appeal is therefore dismissed. The appellant is directed to vacate the premises within one month. It is made clear that he is not debarred from seeking another allotment order of any other premises if he has any such right in accordance with law. The appellant shall pay costs to the respondents throughout which we quantify at Rs. 5,000. 00.