3, served on E.B. Barrow.
3 as he had been in companytinuance possession of the said premises since October 7, 1977 and inter alia gave a direction that if respondent No.
The High Court rejected the companytention of respondent No.
On April 20, 1982 the application of the appellant was allowed by the Additional District Magistrate.
The appellant rushed to the Rent Control Officer and obtained a stay of further eviction, as a result of which he retained possession of two rooms and a store in the said premises.
The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge of the High Court.
No appeal or revision petition was preferred against this order.
The appellant applied unsuccessfully to the said Additional District Magistrate to get the stay order vacated.
3 on May 14, 1982, filed an application to the Additional District Magistrate Finance and Revenue for recalling the order passed on April 20, 1982 or to stay its operation.
The said bungalow belonged to one Shri S. Barrow, who was a bachelor and died in 1966.
In the said application, S. Barrow, who died in 1966 as stated aforesaid, was shown as the owner of the said premises.
He further held that there appeared to be numbertruth in the case set out by respondent No.
As he failed to get possession of the said premises, the appellant filed an application under Section 18 3 of the said Act to the District Magistrate for eviction of respondent No.
He pointed out that as the allotment order had been set aside, it was obligatory on the part of the District Magistrate, when an application had been made to him, to put back the appellant in possession.
On October 15, 1977 an order was made against the deceased S. Barrow allotting the said premises to respondent No.
The learned Additional District Judge, who heard the said revision petition, by his order dated January 17, 1981 allowed the same and set aside the order of allotment in favour of respondent No.
This order was number challenged in any further proceedings and became final.
3 filed an application before the District Magistrate for the transfer of the allotment proceedings from Additional District Magistrate to some other companypetent companyrt.
The Additional District Magistrate Finance and Revenue stayed the eviction of respondent No.
3 pending the decision of the proceedings before him.
100/ per month payable from October 7, 1977 to August 31, 1988 within a period of three weeks, he should number be evicted till the disposal of the allotment proceedings pending before the Additional District Magistrate.
On May 13, 1982, the proceedings were transferred to Additional District Magistrate Finance and Revenue .
3 getting the possession at the instance of or with the companysent of anyone else.
As the Appeal is against interlocutory order, we proposed to dispose of the same by a short order.
3 filed an application before the Rent Control Officer, Lucknow, praying that the said bungalow hereinafter referred to as the said premises was vacant and available for allotment and that the said premises should be allotted to him.
3 has disputed this, but it is companymon ground that the appellant is, at least, one of the companyowners of the said bungalow.
3 from the said premises and for delivery of the vacant possession thereof to the appellant.
3 paid to the appellant or deposited with the said Additional District Magistrate for payment to the appellant the arrears at the rate of Rs.
The dispute relates to a bungalow situate at 553/135, Adarsh Nagar, P.S. Alambagh, Lucknow.
The operative part of the order stated that if the premises was available for allotment, they might be allotted to respondent No.
took forcible possession of the said premises on October 7, 1977.
The numberice of the said application addressed to S. Barrow a dead person, was, according to respondent No.
3, and went on to companyclude that the said order was passed in abuse of the powers or in exercise of the powers number vested in the said Additional District Magistrate.
Respondent No.
3, he was put in possession by E.B. Barrow.
The allotment order was directed against a person, namely, S. Barrow, who died long back and there companyld be numberquestion of respondent No.
He directed respondent No.
3 and directing that the said premises should be handed over to respondent No.
On September 9, 1977 respondent No.
According to the appellant, respondent No.
3 to vacate the said premises within fifteen days failing which he should be evicted by force.
The appellant then filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate Finance and Revenue .
This is an Appeal by Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Curiously enough, after having held on all the points in favour of the appellant, the High Court observed that equitable companysiderations arose in favour of respondent No.
The learned Additional District Judge held that the allotment order was addressed to S. Barrow, who had died long ago and hence, it was of numberlegal effect.
3 that the possession of the said premises was delivered to him by E.B. Barrow.
Kania, J. Special Leave granted.
Counsel heard.
The appellant preferred a revision petition under Section 18 1 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the said Act against the said order of allotment.
This is denied by the appellant.
However, according to respondent No.
3 or to any other person found entitled.
According to the appellant, the said bungalow has companye to his share respondent No.
Curiously enough, on April 23, 1982 respondent No.
