MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. The reliefs in the two writ petitions though apparently not similar, the questions involved being the same, these have been heard together at admission stage, and are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE dispute in these petitions relates to premises No. 5 Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Allahabad, of which the petitioner was a tenant. Applications for allotment of the building in question being moved before the R. C. and E. O. on the ground of deemed vacancy under Section 12 (3) of Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on account of the petitioner-tenant having constructed another house, the R. C. and E. O. after necessary inquiry, by his order dated 29-2-1980 declared the building to be vacant. Subsequently, by his order dated 30-1-1981 the R. C. and E. O. allotted the building in favour of the respondent No. 3 under Section 16 of the Act. THE petitioner thereupon filed a revision under Section 18 of the Act, being Rent Control Revision No. 85 of 1981, before the District Judge, Allahabad on various grounds, including non-existence of vacancy, lack of jurisdiction of the incumbent R. C. and E. O. to adjudicate the matter and wrong exercise of jurisdiction in making allotment in favour of the respondent. THE District Judge by his order dated 6-5-1982 allowed the revision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction with Shri K. M. Pandey, the concerned R. C. and E. O. , to decide the matter, and remanded the case to another Rent Control and Eviction Officer, named, Brijendra Singh, to consider and decide the question of allotment, after hearing the various applicants for allotment, in accordance with law.

(3.) THE petitioner filed writ petition No. 371003 of 1995, in effect, containing the same prayer which was declined in the review proceedings, to the effect that the District Judge be commanded by a writ of mandamus to decide the Rent Revision No. 85 of 1981 in accordance with the law prevalent at the time of passing of the impugned order of the R. C. and E. O. , ignoring the law subsequently declared by the apex Court in Ganpat Roy's case (supra ).