PRITAM PRAKASH NAGALIA Vs. ADDL D J DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastav\a, J. During the pendency of a revision under Section 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'act') filed by the tenant Sri Jairampuri, the respondent No. 3, directed against the order, dated 18-2-1932 whereunder the premises in dispute had been released in favour of the landlord, the present petitioner, who happens to be one landlord of the premises in dispute tiled an application seeking amendments in the original application tiled under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act putting forward his claim for the release of the accommodation for his personal occupation and use only. The Revising Authority, however, rejected the said application vide the order dated 25-7-1985 and proceeded to heard the revision filed by the tenant on merits which was dismissed on 24-12-1985.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of both the orders referred to above.

(3.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer considered the question relating to the accrual of vacancy in respect of the accommodation in dispute and vide the order dated 18-12-1981 declared the premises in dispute to be vacant under Section 12 of the Act. Under the same order after declaring the vacancy, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed for inviting the applications seeking the allotment fixing 23- 12-1981 for considering the matter relating to the release of the accommodation in dispute. It appears that since the accommodation in dispute had been declared vacant in the proceedings under Section 16 of the Act, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer first proceeded to consider and dispose of the application seeking release of the premises in dispute which application was allowed holding the need of Mahendra Kumar Nagalia to be genuine and bona fide. From the perusal of the aforesaid orders, it appears that the objection preferred by the petitioner were rejected indicating that firstly, he had withdrawn from the proceedings and secondly, on the ground that except him none of the other co- landlords had objected to the genuineness of the need of Mahendra Kumar Nagalia justifying the release in his favour and thirdly even if, there had been more co-landlords, the release could be granted even in respect of one.