JAMIUL REHMAN Vs. D.J.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Rahul Sripat learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 who was also one of the applicants for allotment states that his client is not responding. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. Building in dispute was allotted to the petitioner who was already continuing as tenant thereof. Against the allotment order respondent No. 4 the other applicant for allotment filed Rent Revision No. 1/81, which was allowed by the District Judge, Lalitpur on 28.1.1982 and matter was remanded for reconsideration of allotment. It was directed that shop in dispute could be allotted to any other person except the petitioner, including the revisionist. Against the said revisional order of remand this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) IN this writ petition on 27.3.2001 an application was filed stating therein that respondent No. 4 had executed some deed surrendering his right in the shop in dispute in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, a statement was made by the learned Counsel for petitioner before this Court on 17.5.2001 that petition be dismissed as not pressed. On the basis of the said statement this petition was dismissed on 17.5.2001 as not pressed.

(3.) THE Revisional Court held that the petitioner had been inducted as tenant by landlord on 1.11.1980 without allotment order hence his possession was unauthorized and shop could not be allotted to him. This view is legally erroneous. The Supreme Court in R.K. Parashar v. Dinesh Kumar : AIR 2000 SC 1168, has held that such a tenant can be allotted the tenanted building. There was therefore nothing wrong in the allotment order in favour of petitioner. The R.C. and E.O. also considered the comparative need of petitioner and respondent No. 4 and found the petitioner to be more needy and deserving. Accordingly, recall application is allowed. Order dated 17.5.2001 dismissing the writ petition as not pressed is set aside. Writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court is set aside. Order of R.C. and E.O. is restored.