MOHAMMAD NASEEM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, ALMORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Rajesh Tandon made a mention before this Court that Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 20825/97 and 20830/97 filed as fresh on 1st of July, 1997 may be taken up today as the matter is vary urgent because as per his instructions, Form -C has been issued against the petitioner in respect of the ground floor accommodation in question. Seeing the urgency the prayer is allowed. Heard the petitioner's Counsel and perused the impugned order as well as the annexures annexed with the petition.

(2.) BOTH the writ petitions arise out of common order dated 7.6.1997 passed by the District Judge, Almora disposing of the two revisions filed before him, hence both the writ petitions have been taken up together.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner rightly conceded that in view of Full Bench decision of the Court in Talib Hasain and another v. Ist Additional District Judge, Nainital and others, 1986 (12) ALR 113 (FB), the petitioner who was a prospective allottee before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no right to file objections against the release application nor he possessed any right to file revision before the Revisional Court. He However argued that once revisional court had come to the conclusion that the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable on account of the amended Section 2(1)(bbb), the Revisional Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer made in respect of the ground floor accommodation whereby the possession of the petitioner was protected. It is well established law that R.C. and E.O. can exercise his powers for allotment or release under Section 16 only in case where the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. When the provisions of the Act were not applicable, the proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer were a nullity and any order passed in those proceedings was non -est. By way of this writ petitions, the petitioner before this Court has challenged the order of the revisional court whereby revision of the landlord has been allowed and the order made in favour of the petitioner in respect of the ground floor accommodation has been set aside and it has been prayed that the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in favour of the petitioner be restored. Once it is held that the proceedings initiated before the R.C. and E.O. were without jurisdiction null, and void, on account of non -applicability of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the order passed in favour of the petitioner was itself a nullity and the same cannot be restored.