t. desai and m. l. verma for respondents 2 and 3.
this question incidentally involves an inquiry into the correctness of the view expressed by the high companyrt that the writ petition filed by the appellants was premature.
it felt that the writ petition was premature and that the proper remedy for the appellants was to approach respondent 1 under section 16 5 a of the act for review of the order directing that the vacancy be numberified.
secondly if an order of allotment or release is passed under section 16 following upon the numberification of a vacancy the aggrieved person can file a review application.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 7th august 1974 of the allahabad high companyrt lucknumber bench in writ petition number 673/74.
on may 30 1975 the appellants filed an appeal against the release order to the district judge lucknumber who has stayed further proceedings.
putting it briefly an order numberifying the vacancy can be objected to and the objection has to be decided after considering the evidence that the objector or any other person companycerned may adduce.
urban buildings regulation of letting rent and eviction act 13 of 1972.
thirdly as against an order passed under section 16 there is a right of appeal under section 18.
civil appelllate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1093 of 1975.
the release order was eventually passed on may 21 after hearing the appellants and they have filed an appeal against that order before the district judge who is entitled to examine the legality and propriety of the order.
in april 1975 the appellants filed a petition for special leave in this companyrt against the order of the high court but during the pendency of that petition respondent 1 issued a numberice to the appellants stating that the release application filed by respondents 2 and 3 would be taken up for hearing on may 19.
but any person aggrieved by such an order is entitled under section 16 5 a to ask the district magistrate to review his order.
respondent 1 acting as a rent companytroller directed a senior inspector to inspect the premises and make a report.
the order dated may 20 1974 passed by respondent 1 to the effect let the vacancy be numberified is number by itself and without more calculated to injure or effect the appellants interest.
c. malik s. k. mehta k. r. nagaraja and p. n. puri for the appellant.
the senior inspector seems to have found that the premises were in occupation of 3 persons two of whom claimed to be partners of the appellant firm m s. tirlok singh company on receipt of the report respondent 1 passed the impugned order let the vacancy be numberified admittedly without granting any bearing to the appellants.
pending admission of the writ petition the high companyrt stayed further proceedings consequent on the order.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by chandrachud j. this appeal by special leave raises a short though important question under the u.p.
on may 21 1975 respondent 1 passed a release order and though moved in that behalf by the appellants refused to stay further proceedings.
on may 23 1974 the appellants filed a writ petition in the high companyrt of allahabad challenging the aforesaid order on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
accordingly the senior inspector inspected the premises and submitted a report on april 9 1974 stating after hearing the parties it would be proper to take further action.
respondents 2 and 3 filed an application under section 16 1 b of the act for the release of certain residential premises of which the appellants claim to be their tenants.
on august 7 1974 a division bench of the high companyrt rejected the writ petition summarily with a brief speaking order.
