JAIPAL SINGH Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is a nominee of the landlord, under Section 17 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (the Act for short), a person aggrieved? Can he file a revision under Section 18 of the Act? These are the questions involved in the present writ petition. This is how they arise. FACTS

(2.) Sri Banwarilal, respondent No. 4 was the landlord of the shop in question. One Sunder Prakash was tenant of the same. Landlord filed a suit for ejectment against the tenant. It was decreed. The landlord had filed an application for release of the shop on 6.8.1979 on the ground that shop is likely to fall vacant. The tenant was ejected and vacancy occurred in the shop in question. Applications for allotment were also filed : Pramod Kumar (respondent No. 3) filed one application on 28.8.1979 ; Jaipal Singh (petitioner) filed another application on 29.8.1979. The landlord did not press his application for release ; it was dismissed as not pressed on 29.2.1980. When no allotment was made within 21 days, the landlord nominated the petitioner (his son) for allotment on 25.3.1980 under Section 17 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer (respondent No. 2), neither allotted the premises to him nor did he allot it to any other person within ten days from receipt of the intimation of the nomination. The matter was kept pending and ultimately he, by his order dated 19.6.1981, did not accept the nomination of the landlord but allotted the premises to the respondent No. 3. Petitioner, the landlord's nominee, filed a revision. This revision has been dismissed on 19.3.1982 by the IInd Additional District Judge. Muzaffarnagar, (respondent No. 1) (hereinafter referred to as the revisional court). He has not decided the revision on merits but has dismissed it on the ground that : the nominee of the landlord is not a person aggrieved ; and he is not entitled to file a revision under Section 18 of the Act. This was done on the basis of a judgment in Dayaram v. IVth Additional District Judge, 1980 (2) UPRCC 422. Hence the present writ petition. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION :

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties. The following is the only point for determination in the writ petition : 1. Is a nominee of the landlord, in case he is not allotted the premises, a person aggrieved? Can he file a revision under Section 18 of the Act? DAYARAM'S CASE