MOHD. UMAR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge dated 13 -4 -1973. By the said order, the learned District Judge had dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30 -12 -1972 allotting house No. 92/109 Hiraman Ka Purwa Kanpur in favour of the Respondent No. 4. The only controversy raised before the District Judge by the Petitioner was that the said house should have been allotted to the Petitioner instead of the aforesaid Respondent. The Petitioner had based his claim of allotment on the ground that he had filed the application for allotment earlier to that of the Respondent No. 4. Accordingly, in accordance with Rule 10 read with Rule 11 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the said premises should have been allotted to him. It appears that the Petitioner had filed an application on 5 -9 -1972 for allotment of any house without' disclosing the number or particulars regarding which this application was filed. In the meantime, the Respondent No. 4 filed an application on 21 -11 -1972 mentioning specifically the house in question being allotted to him. The Petitioner thereafter filed a fresh application on 6 -12 -1972 for the allotment of this house. The Prescribed Authority considered the three applications and having found that the application of Respondent No. 4 was prior in time to that of the Petitioner allotted the house to the Respondent No. 4.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner contended that as he had earlier filed an application on 5 -9 -1972, therefore, the Prescribed Authority should have treated his application as prior in time to that filed by the Respondent No. 4. It is admitted that the application dated 5 -9 -1972 did not give the details about the house in respect of which the said application was filed. This application, therefore, cannot be treated as one having been made by the Petitioner regarding the house in question. So far as the application made by Respondent No. 4 is concerned, it is admitted that the same was prior to that of the Petitioner which had been filed on 6 -12 -1972. Accordingly, the learned District Judge cannot be said to have committed any error in affirming the judgment of the Prescribed Authority by holding that the claim of the Petitioner on the basis of priorities was rightly negatived.

(3.) IN the result, the writ petition fails. It is dismissed. No order as to costs. The stay order is vacated.