The tenant intimated his intention to the Rent Control and Eviction officer to vacate the premises on 25.6.1974 on receipt of the aforesaid application of the tenant a Rent Control Inspector was directed to visit the spot and after visiting the same he reported that the premises in question were likely to fall vacant on 9.6.74.
812 of 1980 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 23rd November, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
It was only after the prescribed authority had allotted the premises to the appellant and the respondent landlady came to know of this fact that she moved the prescribed authority for cancellation of the allotment but her prayer was rejected.
The respondent landlady there upon filed a writ petition in the High Court challenged the orders of the District Supply officer as also of the District Judge who had affirmed that order and companyfirmed the order of allotment in favour of the appellant.
If the respondent companyld succeed in companyvincing the District Magistrate that a case for release of the entire building was made out, then the question of allotting the premises to the appellant would number have arisen at all.
Thereafter, the landlady filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Bijnor which was allowed and the allotment in favour of the appellant was cancelled on the ground that the provisions of s. 17 2 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act were number companyplied with.
This led the landlady to file another appeal before the Additional District Judge, Bijnor who by his Order dated 21.9.77 rejected the plea of the landlady, dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the order of allotment.
As against this, the landlady applied for release of the accommodation to her in terms of the provisions of s. 16 1 b of the Act which runs thus Allotment and release of vacant building.
The appellant then obtained special leave of this Court against the order of the High Court and hence this appeal before us.
The High Court by the impugned order allowed the writ petition and sent the matter back to the Rent Control and Eviction officer to companysider the question of allotment afresh in view of the observations Made by the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The first respondent, Smt.
Rajkumari Jain, inducted Shri Thapalayal as a tenant in the premises in dispute which are situated in the town of Bijnor.
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the District Magistrate may by order a xx xx b release the whole or any part of such building, or any land appurtenant thereto, in favour of the landlord to be called a release order .
The prayer of the landlady under s. 16 1 b also appears to have been ignored by the Rent Control authorities and by an order dated 15.4.76, the District Supply officer re allotted the accommodation to the appellant.
In fact, the appellant had applied to the authority on 20.5.74 for allotment of the accommodation to him.
Writ No 479 of 1978.
Put briefly, the facts of the case fall within a narrow companypass so far as the points for decision are companycerned.
This application was number at all companysidered on merits by the District Magistrate or by any companyrt for that matter.
K. Garg, V.J. Francis and S.K. Jain for the Appellant.
It appears that these proceedings were taken behind the back of the respondent landlady who was number taken into companyfidence either by the appellant or by the Rent Control authorities.
Shanti Bhushan, R.K Jain, P.R. Jain and Pankaj Kalra for Respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated November 23, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court allowing a writ petition quashing the order of the Rent Control and Eviction officer and remanding the case to him for companysidering the question afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by the High Court.
The prescribed authority by its order dated 1.6.74 allotted the premises to the appellant.
The appeal involves a short and simple point but the case appears to have had rather a long and chequered career.
