January 20, 1984 and quashed the order of the Addl.
to re spondent number 4, which he disposed of by the same order dt.
District Magistrate, respondent No.
It appears that respondent had made an application to the State Govt.
Vacancy in the first floor arose, several persons including the appellant, H.C. Ghildiyal and Ramakant Srivastava made appli cations for allotment of the same.
The District Judge by his order dt.
G.L. Pahwa being the successor in interest of Mauji Ram Gupta, did number and companyld number acquire any further right either to get the premises in dispute released in his favour or to challenge the validity of the allotment order.
16 of the U.P Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
During the pendency of the review application the revision application made by respondent number 1 was dismissed by the District Judge on 28.2.78 for want of prosecution.
Respondent number 1 filed revision application under sec.
4.1.78.
District Judge dt.
18.8.77 allowed his revision application set aside the allotment order made in appellants favour and directed respondent number 4 to reconsider the applica tions made for allotment of the premises in accordance with law.
157 of 1985 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.1984 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No.
226 of the Constitution before the High Court.
for release of the first floor and that had been forwarded by the Govt.
14.12.81 on the finding that since the premises in dispute was a part of land lords building which he was occupying, it was mandatory that numberice should have been issued to the landlord and since numbernotice had been issued to him the allotment order was vitiat ed.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition by his order dt.
Mauji Ram Gupta executed a registered sale deed in favour of L. Pahwa on 18.7.77 transferring the entire house including the premises in dispute to him, as a result of which respondent number 1 became the owner and the landlord of the premises in dispute.
18 of the Act.
Mauji Ram Gupta, the landlord also made an application for the release of the premises to him under sec.
Thereaf ter respondent number4 allotted the first floor of the house to the appellant by his order dt.
14.12.81, on the findings that review application was number maintainable and respondent number 4 had numberjurisdiction to review his order on the ground of absence of numberice to respondent number 1 who was transferee land lord.
G.L. Pahwa made application for allotment and the respondent number 4 allot ted the ground floor to him on 31.12.76, this appears to have been done with a view to regularise his possession.
July 23, 1976 and in pursuance to that order she obtained possession of the premises on 25.7.76.
District Judge and directed respondent number 4 to companysider the application for allot ment for giving numberice to respondent number 1.
The dispute relates to 1st floor of House No.
23.7.86 made in appellants favour under sec.
Respondent number 4 was under a legal duty to issue numberice to respondent number 1 who had by that time acquired rights of land lord.
District Magistrate Civil Supplies , Lucknow to reconsider the applications made for allot ment of the premises in dispute after giving numberice to the respondent landlord.
109/16 situate in Model House Colony, Aminabad, Lucknow.
The Addl.
G.L. Pahwa was number entitled to maintain a review application and Addition al District Magistrate had numberjurisdiction to recall his order dated 4.1.78 alloting the premises to the appellant and further he was number entitled to any numberice either under sec tion 17 2 of the Act or under Rule 9 3 , as the requisite numberice had already been issued to the erstwhile landlord Mauji Ram Gupta who had companytested the allotment proceedings.
He filed a review application also before re spondent number 4 for recall of the order dt.
Shri Tarkundc learned companynsel for the appellant urged that the High Court companymitted error in setting aside the allotment order and directing the District Magistrate to reconsid er the allotment applications at the instance of G.L. Pahwa, respondent number 1.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
However the review application of respondent number 1 was allowed by respondent number 4 by his order dr.
District Judge and directed the alloting authority to reconsider the applications for allotment after giving numberice to the landlord respondent number 1.
4.1.78.
Before we companysider the submissions made on behalf of the appellant it is necessary to briefly numberice the findings recorded by the High Court.
As numbered earlier Mauji Ram Gupta sold the entire house in dispute to G.L. Pahwa on 18.7.77 and the allotment order in appellants favour was set aside by the Additional Dis trict Judge on 8.8.77 at the instance of R.K. Srivastava on unsuccessful applicant for the allotment of the premises in dispute.
R.K. Srivastava on unsuc cessful applicant for the allotment of the premises in dispute had challenged the allot ment order dt.
Mauji Ram Gupta the owner of the house was residing in the ground floor of the house while the 1st floor was let out to a tenant.
4 by his Order dt.
25.2.76 rejected Mauji Ram Guptas application and allotted the premises to H.C. Ghildiyal, but he did number occupy the premises instead he informed respondent number 4 that he did number require the premises.
But as numbernotice was issued to him, he companyld number exercise his right to numberinate a tenant of his choice although the appellant as well as the authority companysidering the application, for allotment both had ac quired knowledge that respondent number 1 was the trans feree landlord occupying a portion of the building.
23.7.76 directed respondent number 4 to companysider the allotment applications in accord ance with law.
On these findings, he recalled his Order dated 4.1.78.
M. Tarkunde and Shakeel Ahmed Syed for the Appellant.
18.1.83, and set aside the order of respondent number 4 dt.
18 of the Act.
Since numbernotice was given to him the allotment proceeding was rendered illegal.
Mauji Ram Gupta, the landlord chal lenged the allotment order by means of revi sion application before the District Judge but the same was rejected.
The High Court held that since the District Judge while setting aside the initial order of allotment made in appellants favour dt.
Mauji Ram Gupta entered into an agreement for the sale of the house with G.L. Pahwa, respondent number 1 and in part performance of the agreement he permitted G.L. Pahwa to occupy the ground floor of the house in November 1976.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad Lucknow Bench dt.
Aggrieved the appellant challenged the validi ty of the order of the High Court.
The Addl.
Respondent number 1 challenged the validity of the order of the Addl.
18.1.83 by means of a writ petition under Art.
18 of the Act challenging the allotment order dt.
In pursuance of the directions issued by the District Judge re spondent number 4 companysidered the applications and by his order dt.
4.1.78 he again allotted the premises to the appellant and rejected the claims of other applicants.
January 20, 1984 setting aside order of the Addl.
District Judge, Lucknow dt.
January 18, 1983 and quashing the allotment order made in appellants favour and directing the Addl.
C. Maheshwari, R.D. Upadhyay and Manoj Saxena for the Respondents.
The appellant challenged the order by means of a revision application before the District Judge under sec.
1404 of 1983.
4.1.78.
Notice of the allotment proceedings was number given to re spondent number 1, although by that time he had acquired full rights of a landlord.
