SAILANDRA KUMAR Vs. KRISHNA DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. It appears that premises in dispute were allotted to the petitioner by order dated 6 -12 -1982. This order was challenged by the landlord by filing a revision. The learned 5th Addl. District Judge by his order dated 28 -2 -1984 set aside the aforesaid allotment order dated 6 -12 -1982. The record shows that after passing of the allotment order, the petitioner had taken possession of the premises in dispute. After the decision of revision, the landlord moved an application for being put back in possession of the premises in dispute. This application has been allowed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer by order dated 2 -8 -1985. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of this order.

(2.) SECTION 18(3) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 provides that where an order under Section 16 or Section 19 is rescinded, the District Magistrate shall, on an application being made to him on that behalf, place the parties back in the position which they would have occupied but for such order or such part thereof as has been rescinded, and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. It is not disputed from the side of the petitioner that the allotment order passed in his favour on 6 -12 -1982 has been set aside. In these circumstances, the petitioner has no legal rights to remain in occupation of the premises in dispute. In Triloki Nath Trivedi v. R.C. & E.O.,, 1983 (9) ALR 398 it has been held that where an order of allotment is rescinded, the Rent Control & Eviction Officer is under obligation to put the landlord in possession of the premises. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. The stay order dated 29 -8 -1985 is hereby vacated.