IRSHAD AHMAD Vs. VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24-3-1993, passed by VIIth Additional District Judge, Aligarh, respondent No.1, whereby he allowed the revision setting aside the allotment order which had been passed in favour of the petitioner by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Aftab Ahmad Khan is owner and landlord of house No.4/292 (Old No.4/185) Shaukat Afza, situate at Ameer Nishan, Aligarh. One Gulam Abdul Qadir was tenant of the first floor portion of the said house. On 22-10-1990 the landlord intimated to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer chat the tenant had got a job in Jamia Millia, Delhi and shifted there. The accommodation in question was likely to fall vacant. On 30th Nov. 1990, the tenant intimated to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that he has delivered vacant possession of the accommodation which was under his tenancy to the landlord on 30-11-1990. On 3-12-1990, the petitioner applied for allotment of the accommodation in question. On the next date, the landlord intimated to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the accommodation in question be allotted to the petitioner. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 7-11-1990 declared the vacancy and invited applications for allotment. Various persons including respondents 3 and 4 filed applications for allotment of the disputed accommodation. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the disputed accommodation in favour of the petitioner by his order dated 25-1-1991, taking into consideration the nomination made by the landlord in favour of the petitioner and also considering his need. The petitioner claims that he obtained possession on 28/01/1991 after the allotment order was passed in his favour. Three separate revisions were filed against the allotment order by Shakil Ahmad, Khurshid and Afsar Respondent No.1 allowed the revision by his order dated 24-3-1993 setting aside the allotment order and remanded the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to consider the allotment applications afresh ignoring the nomination which had been made in favour of the petitioner by the landlord. The petitioner has challenged this order.

(3.) I have heard Sri S.U. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.H. Khan, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.