LAJPAT RAI BHATIA Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that arises for consideration in this petition is if the allottee of premises is entitled to claim impleadment in appeal arising out of release proceedings under Section 16 of the Act.

(2.) IN 1973 two applications were filed one by Petitioner for allotment and other by opposite party for release. Both were decided on same day. Application for release was rejected. Premises were allotted in favour of Petitioner who it is claimed entered into possession as well. Against both orders opposite party filed two appeals. They were dismissed. The order was however set aside by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8083 of 1974 and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeals afresh. On 18th September 1981 Petitioner filed an application that he being allottee in possession was vitally interested in appeal arising out of release proceedings therefore he may be impleaded as a party. It was rejected by appellate authority for three reasons - one there was no Rule permitting impleadment of tenant in release proceedings, he was not party before Rent Control and Eviction Officer and impleadment may result in anomalous situation as the proceedings are concerned with requirement of landlord which Petitioner intended to contest. It was also observed that Petitioner had no vested right in these proceedings. And the legal position did not alter despite deletion of Sub -rule (4) of Rule 13 of Act XIII of 1972.

(3.) RELIANCE is placed on Ashok Kumar v. District Judge, 1979 UP RCC 499 by learned Counsel for opposite party and it is urged that even after deletion of Sub -rule (4) a prospective allottee does not get any right of impleadment in release proceedings. This case is of no assistance for two reasons -first the Hon' Hon'ble Judge having allowed the writ petition of perspective allottee and permitted him to be impleaded as party in revision the discussion on Rule 4 was obiter dicta, second even accepting the observation, 'inspite of deletion of Sub -clause (4) of Rule 13 of the Rules, the perspective allottee has no right to object to the release of the accommodation' as ratio decidendi the case is distinguishable, because a tenant or a person in occupation as a allottee cannot be put on same footing as perspective allottee. Former class of persons by virtue of possession or order in their favour which confers a right on them to remain in occupation so long the order is not set aside have a right to contest the claim of landlord. They can satisfy the District Magistrate that the building was not bonafide required by the landlord. To deny this right specially after deletion of Sub -rule (4) would be negativing basic concept of passing an order effecting a party after hearing him. Same may not be said about prospective allottee. So long no order is passed in his favour he does not become entitled to participation in release proceedings.