RAMESH KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the contesting respondents and perused the impugned orders. From the materials on the record it appears that the premises in dispute was declared to be vacant by the competent authority under the order dated 30 -6 -90 passed in the proceedings under Section 16 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The present petitioner had moved an application seeking allotment of the aforesaid premises. The landlord had also sought for the release of the said premises in his favour. The competent authority rejected the release application vide the order dated 10 -7 -90 and under the same order allotted it in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) IT further appears that the aforesaid two orders dated 10 -7 -90 were challenged in revisions under Section 18 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by the occupant as well as the landlord. Both these revisions were disposed of by two separate orders of the same date whereunder the entire order dated 10 -7 -90 was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for reconsideration on merits. It was made clear that the matter of allotment shall be considered only after disposing of the release application on merits as directed.

(3.) THE learned counsel has asserted that in the circumstances of the case the petitioner could not be deemed to be a prospective allottee only inasmuch as after the order dated 10 -7 -90 allotting the premises in dispute in his favour he had succeeded in getting possession of the premises in dispute on 18 -7 -70, as is evident from the memo of delivery of possession a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent has, however, contended that once the order dated 10 -7 -90 stood set aside any action based and consequent upon the said order had to fall and the possession of the petitioner even if it is assumed to be continuing inspite of the setting aside of the order dated 10 -7 -90, has to be treated as unauthorised. The contention is that the status of the petitioner, in these circumstances, cannot be higher than that of a prospective allottee as he will be deemed to have been relegated to the said position with the setting aside of the order dated 10 -7 -90.