NOOR MOHAMMAD Vs. IVTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A residential building was declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, in 1977, to have fallen vacant. The Petitioner was one of the persons who applied for allotment of the same. In respect of rival claims for allotment, a writ petition was earlier filed in this Court, being petition No. 1925 of 1979. By an order dated 4 -4 -1980, the matter was remanded to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer who was required by this Court to pass fresh order in accordance with law. During the pendency of the allotment proceedings the original owner of the building transferred the house by sale in favour of opposite parties 3 to 5 who thereafter made an application for release in their favour on 3 -11 -1982. The Petitioner opposed the consideration of this release application, but his objection has been rejected by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer and on revision by the Additional District Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE rulings relied on by the learned Additional District Judge in his appellate order do support his order. The following propositions have been laid down in the cases relied on:

(3.) IT is true that if the previous landlord had made an application for release then no application for allotment could be taken up for consideration until after rejection of the release application. He, however, did not make any application for release and it was because of this that the applications for allotment came to be considered. This only implies that the previous owner did not need the building for himself and that may be a reason why he sold it away. If the new owner does need the building for himself, there is nothing in law to prevent him from asserting his need. The applicant for allotment cannot contend that they have acquired any vested right to have their applications considered without any application for the release being considered.