ASHARFI LAL Vs. VTH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-landlord challenges the order passed by the revisional authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 dated 4th November, 1985, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-V to the writ petition, whereby the revisional authority has allowed the revision filed by respondents 2 and 3 against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 28th July, 1983, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'III' to the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the shop in question. The aforesaid shop was originally let out to the Thok Evam Futkar Krya Evam Vikray Sahkari Samiti. The said Sahkari Samiti vacated the said shop and the liquidator of the society has handed over the possession of the shop in question to the landlord. The respondents 2 and 3 filed an application that the aforesaid shop is vacant and that the same may be allotted to them. The petitioner/ landlord also filed an application for the release of the aforesaid shop in his favour. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 25th August, 1982 found that the shop in question is vacant, it after considering the application for release on merits allowed the same by the order dated 28th July, 1983 and released the shop in question in favour of the landlord. The respondents 2 and 3 preferred a revision against the order dated 28th July, 1983, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, which as stated above, has been allowed by the revisional court. Thus, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-landlord contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Sonkar v. Incharge District Judge and Ors., 1995 (2) ARC 1, wherein the Apex Court has held that while considering the release application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the prospective allottee has no right to contest the same and the matter of release is between the landlord and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Apex Court has affirmed the Full Bench decision in Talib Hussain v. Ist Addl. District Judge, 1986 (1) ARC 1 (FB). The Apex Court in the aforesaid case in paragraph 2 has held, which reads thus :