GENDA LAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) H e a r d petitioner's counsel.

(2.) The dispute relates to a portion of house No. 127/196(40), Vishwakarma Mandir. Juhi, Kanpur Nagar, which is a charitable trust property whose Sarvarakar is Mahadev Prasad. It appears that after vacation by Randhir Singh tenant, the disputed accommodation was declared vacant by the order of the R.C.O. dated 14.8.92 and thereafter the same was allotted in favour of the petitioner by the order of the R.C. and E.G. dated 17.9.1992. The landlord challenged the order of allotment by filing revision under Section 18 of the Act and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge by the order dated 21.9.1994. The order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner was set aside on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rules 8 (2) and 9 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act inasmuch as at no stage of the proceedings, landlord was informed of the same and the order of allotment was obtained by the petitioner behind the back of the landlord. The revisional court thus directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to get the notices served in accordance with law and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the landlord. It further appears that the petitioner never challenged the said order passed by the revisional court on 21.9.1994 and succumbed to that order. After the remand, proceedings were decided afresh and this time the R. C. and E. O. released the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord. The petitioner then filed revision before the respondent No. 1 and the same has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.8.1998 on the ground that the petitioner, whose position was that of a prospective allottee had no locus standi to object to the claim of the landlord for the release of the vacant premises.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.