SATYA PAL JAIN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition by a prospective allottee appears to be premature. The building in respect of which the petitioner is a prospective allottee had been requisitioned earlier under the provisions of U. P. Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947. It is contended that on being moved by the landlord, the District Magistrate passed an order releasing the accommodation from requisition, but inspite of such an order, the landlord has not been put back into possession as required under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act. According to sub-section (2), it is only after delivery of possession of and payment of compensation for such accommodation to the person specified in the order under sub-section (1) will discharge the State Government or District Magistrate from liability in respect of such an accommodation.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landlord had filed a writ petition seeking relief of mandamus which has already been granted by this Court and directions have been issued to the District Magistrate to dispose of the landlord's application to deliver possession to him. The proceeding is still pending. During the pendency of the proceeding, the landlord intimated the rent control and eviction officer regarding the vacancy of the building and also gave his consent in favour of the petitioner that he may be allotted the accommodation under section 17 of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972. To me, however, it appears that unless and until the District Magistrate puts the landlord back into possession, the accommodation is not free for allotment.