DHIRENDRA NATH SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner who is disabled Army Officer, pot in service. By means of this petition he has challenged the judgment and order dated 7th October 1977 of the learned District Judge, Allahabad, allowing the revision against the order dated Jan. 27, 1977 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad, allotting house no. 25A Lowther Road Allahabad, to one Dr. Krishna Kant Mishra who has been arrayed as respondent no. 4 to this petition.

(2.) The petitioner made an application for allotment of the house in question in the prescribed form before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad, on Aug. 7, 1976. He, however, occupied the house on Nov. 1, 1976 with the consent of the landlord. Upon a report having been submitted by the Rent Control Inspector regarding the vacancy of the house in question, a notice was issued to the landlord to enable him to have his say in the matter of allotment. Another application, in continuation of the earlier application dated 7th Aug., 1976 was made by the petitioner, for allotment. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer on Jan. 27, 1977 considered all the applications which had been received for allotment of the house in question. He by an order of the same date allotted the house to Dr. Krishna Kant Mishra, respondent no. 4. The applications made by other persons including that made by the petitioner were rejected.

(3.) Aggrieved, a revision was filed by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Allahabad. The learned District Judge by his order and judgment dated Oct. 7, 1977 allowed this revision holding that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not applied the rule of first come first served and he has completely lost sight of the first application for allotment made by the petitioner on Aug. 7, 1976. On this view the learned District Judge set aside the allotment order made in favour of the respondent no. 4 and allowed the revision. It is this revisional order of the learned District Judge which has been impugned in the present petition. This order has been challenged only to a limited extent so far as the issuance of direction to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to consider as to which of the applicants for allotment whose cases he had considered in his order dated Jan. 27, 1977, had got their applications renewed by Jan. 15, 1977 as provided in Rule 10 (4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Rules 1972 made in due exercise of powers under Sec. 41 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).