ARVIND SHANKER BANSAL Vs. MAHENDRA VIKRAM VIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Jupta, J. Heard Shri B. N. Agrawal for the petitioner and Shri H. S. Nigam for the contesting respondent No. 2.

(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that the im pugned order of respondent No. 1 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as in the circumstances of the present case neither any evidence was required to be adduced nor the same was necessary in the proceed ings initiated on an application under Sec tion 18 (3) of the Act. He further argued that the whole object of passing the im pugned order was simply to allow the respondent No. 2 to continue to remain in occupation unlawfully despite the fact that the order on the basis of which he came to occupy the building, has been cancelled by the District Judge in revision. It was sub mitted that once the order of allotment has been cancelled by the revisional Court respondent No. 2 has no right to remain in occupation of the disputed house and the petitioner is entitled to the restitution as fie is admittedly the owner and landlord of the disputed house. Shri H. S. Nigam, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand contended that the revisional Court has not specifically set aside the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, whereby vacancy was declared nor under law he could do so as he has no power to go into the question of validity of the said order, therefore, after the remand the only course open to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is either to make an order of release or an order of release or an order of allotment and since no person other than respondent No. 2 has applied for allotment, the house in question is liable to be allotted to him again and, therefore, in the circumstances he could not be dispossessed in the proceedings initiated under 18 (3) of the Act. It was further contended that the writ petition is premature as no final order on the applica tion of the petitioner made under Section 18 (3) of the Act has yet been made by respondent No. 1.