ACHAL SINGH Vs. THIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a matter under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and the Rules framed under it.

(2.) THERE was a composite and simultaneous order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Fatehpur, rejecting the release application of the landlord and allotting the same premises to an Advocate and a Member of Legislative Assembly. This order was set aside by the learned District Judge in revision. The petitioner allottee is one Achal Singh, an Advocate and otherwise a Member of Legislative Assembly from Fatehpur The District Judge set aside the composite order in revision, on the ground, amongst others, that it violated the rules of natural justice and denied the landlord from effective participation in the proceedings which were otherwise quasi-judicial. The learned District Judge remanded the matter back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, with certain directions, for initiating the proceedings de novo. Aggrieved, the petitioner allottee, aforesaid has moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) VIGILANT prospective allottees keep watch on accommodations which are likely to fall vacant and the petitioner was one such a person. At times they move applications seeking allotment even before the landlord may have knowledge of a vacancy which may occur in the premises which he owns. The mere action of moving an application, is legal as long as the proceedings which are consequential are in accordance with law because if there is a slip in the procedure, injury may be caused to a class of persons under the Act, who are entitled to release of the accommodation.