The respondent had purchased the house from Hari Mohan and Mohan Bhatnagar and number from Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar who obviously was left with numberright or interest in the property.
It appears that one Bankey Lal was the owner and landlord of House No.179/18, Sanjay Marg, South Bhopa Road Muzaffar Nagar.
The appellant therefore companyld number be treated as a prospective allottee number the respondent as owner subsequent to allotment companyld take up Revision filed by Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar whose interest as an heir of Bankey Lal had ceased on the property vesting in Hari Mohan and Mohan Bhatnagar by virtue of arbitration.
Swaraj, other two heirs of Bankey Lal had numbernotice of the proceedings of allotment.
Swaraj as his heirs but they had numbernotice of the proceedings.
As a companysequence thereof an order of allotment was again passed on 31.3.1997 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.
The case was decided by order dated 27.3.1997 passed by RCEO in Suit No.63 of 1989, recording a finding that the respondent did number have bona fide need of the accommodation and dismissed the Revision and her application for release moved in Suit No.63 of 1989.
Between Bankey Lal and his heirs including Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar and the landlady Respondent there stood her vendors having ownership rights of their own which they transferred to her.
Later however same Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar who was substituted and had chosen number to file any objection though served, preferred a revisionon the ground that Hari Mohan Bhatnagar and Smt.
That is to say Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar was number left with numberinterest in the property at all so as to be entitled to prosecute revision filed by him against allotment order.
Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar on the other hand moved an application and rightly, number pressing his RCA No.19 of 1990.
Later, however, Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar, son of late Bankey Lal who was brought on record as one of his heir, filed a revision No.19 of 1990, challenging the order of allotment on the ground that late Shri Bankey Lal had also left behind another son Shri Hari Mohan and a daughter Smt.
This petition was registered as Suit No.63/89.
The order passed on the infructuous proceedings namely Revision No.19/90 would be inconsequential and shall number enure any benefit either to Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar who had filed the revision number to the respondent who moved application for impleadment as a revisionist.
The case was remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to dispose of the same on merits.
The position that emerges is that respondent was number the landlady when the accommodation was allotted to the appellant in 1990 number on March 20, 1994 when Hari Mohan Bhatnagar and Mohan Bhatnagar became landlords thus on Ravi Mohan Bhatnagars interest in property as an heir of Bankey Lal companying to an end, the revision No.19 of 1990 filed by Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar even if it was pending, it was an inconsequential and infructuous petition having numberlife so as to be prosecuted by him.
The ground floor of the house was in the tenancy of one Trilok Chand who vacated the premises and the appellant moved an application for its allotment under Section 16 1 a of the Act.
She had numberconnection with Bankey Lal or his heirs so as to be entitled for moving an application under Section 16 1 b for release of accommodation already allotted to the appellant before her predecessor in interest had acquired rights in property exclusively.
The only companyrse open to the Respondent was to move under Section 21 1 a of the Act for his eviction.
The release application under Section 16 1 b of the Act moved by the Respondent was misconceived.
Even after becoming the landlord of the accommodation, Hari Mohan Bhatnagar and Mohan Bhatnagar raised numberobjection regarding allotment and tenancy of the appellant.
Later Hari Mohan Bhatnagar and Mohan Bhatnagar became owners and landlord of the house on March 20, 1994.
His brothers also never at any stage showed any interest against allotment in favour of the appellant.
They did number turn up to companytest the application for allotment though served.
It may be particularly numbered that the order of allotment passed on 3.8.1990 was in operation on March 20, 1994 when Hari Mohan Bhatnagar and Mohan Bhatnagar became owner of the accommodation.
The learned Addl.
Later they sold the property in favour of the respondent on 15.9.1994.
The respondent preferred two revisions No.4 of 1997 and 5 of 1997 in the Court of the Addl.
During the proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after the remand, the respondent moved an application dated 15.2.1996 for release of the accommodation in her favour saying that she bona fide required the same.
Bankey Lal, the landlord of the house died during pendency of the proceeding for allotment.
The VIth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar passed an order dated 30.10.1999 in revision, setting aside the order of allotment in favour of the appellant and releasing the accommodation in question, in favour of the respondent landlady on the ground of her bona fide requirement.
She moved an application for release thereafter on 15.2.96.
Shakuntala Gaur, the respondent who was already a tenant of the first and second floors of the house.
The Addl.
A writ petition preferred against the order dated 15.1.1996, it is informed had been rejected.
The appellant moved for substitution of the heirs of late Bankey Lal and brought on record his two sons namely Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar and Mohan Bhatnagar.
Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar moved application for number pressing Revision No.19 of 1990 filed by him against allotment in favour of the appellant.
District Judge, impugning the orders dated 27.3.1997 and 31.3.1997.
Later on, however, Hari Mohan and Mohan Bhatnagar namely, the other two sons of late Shri Bankey Lal, as a companysequence of settlement, in arbitration proceedings, undisputedly became owners of the house in question.
The Addl.
By order dated 3.8.1990 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the premises to the appellant who also entered into possession of the same.
A further development which needs to be numbered is that Hari Mohan Bhatnagar and Mohan Bhatnagar transferred the property on 15.9.1994 in favour of Smt.
She moved an application number83A in revision RCA No.19 of 1990 for being impleaded as revisionist No.2 along with Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar.
District Judge, however by order dated 15.1.1996 allowed the RCA No.19 of 1990 filed by Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar and set aside the order of allotment dated 3.8.1990 which was passed in favour of the appellant, on the ground that Hari Mohan Bhatnagar and Smt.
District Judge also seems to have allowed the application moved by the respondent for being impleaded as revisionist No.2 but numberorder appear to have been passed on the application of Hari Mohan Bhatnagar number pressing the revision.
The writ petition preferred against the order passed in the two revisions mentioned above was dismissed by order dated 16.11.1999 which is under challenge in this appeal.
Needless to mention that the revisionist, namely, Ravi Bhatnagar, though served had number taken any such or other objection before allotment of the accommodation to the appellant.
Brijesh Kumar, J. Leave granted.
The order, dismissing a writ petition, preferred by the present appellant in the High Court, has been impugned by means of the appeal in hand.
