PYARE LAL CHUG Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.2.1991 passed by the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was a tenant of the accommodation in question which was declared as vacant by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner has applied for allotment however the landlord has applied for release under section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner has filed objection against the release application of the landlord.

(2.) THE R.C. and E.O. rejected the release application against which the landlord has filed preferred a revision before the District Judge. The District Judge has passed order releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlord.

(3.) I have perused the record of the writ petition. In my opinion, the petitioner has no locus standi inasmuch as the R.C. and E.O. has wrongly permitted the petitioner to participate in the proceedings while hearing the release application. The matter was between the landlord and the District Magistrate and the Authority concerned was not justified by entertaining the objection filed by the petitioner against the release application in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Sonkar v. Incharge District Judge and others : 1995 (2) ARC 1. Approving the Full Bench decision by the Allahabad High Court, the Apex Court has held as under: