Mitrasen Yadav v. V Addl. D. J. — 1985 DIGILAW 137 (ALL)

JUDGMENT K. N. Misra, J. - The present Writ petition is directed against the judgments and order dated 2411984 and 2761983 passed by opposite parties 1 and 2 namely, Vth Additional District Judge, Faizabad and Addl. District Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Faizabad respectively, whereby the petitioner's application for allotment in respect of the residential premises 4, Civil Lines, Faizabad has been rejected and this aid premises are allotted to the opposite party No. 3 Sri Harihar Prasad Dube. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows: 3. The petitioner, Mitrasen yadav, had moved an application for allotment on 20th June, 1979 in respect of said premises, which was registered at Serial No. 152. The opposite Party No. 3, Sri Harihar Prasad Dubey, had moved an application for allotment prior to the said date on 851979 which was registered at Serial No. 120. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, vide order dated 1991979, declared the vacancy in respect of the said premises and proceeded to consider the applications for allotment and after giving due opportunities to parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims for allotment of the premises, allotted the same to the petitioner Sri Mitrasen Yadav, MLA of Milkipur Constituency (Rural Area), District Faizabad, who needed this premises for his residence and for his official work as well as party work in the town. The opposite party No. 3 Sri Harihar Prasad Dube, DGC (Civil), District Faizabad, had applied for the allotment of the premises on the ground that the accommodation (House No. 4/1/11,Dhara Road, Faizabad), which he was occupying had become unfit for habitation on account of various acts of his landlord who had got demolished certain portion of the accommodation illegally and in an unauthorized manner. The house had become unfit for use and occupation and so he has taken abode in the residence of Sri Ravindra Nath Srivastava as licensee on temporary basis. He filed affidavit giving details about unauthorised action of the landlord who had also filed suit for his eviction in respect of the said premises. The details were also given about the members of his family amongst whom some are school going children getting their education. He filed affidavit giving details about unauthorised action of the landlord who had also filed suit for his eviction in respect of the said premises. The details were also given about the members of his family amongst whom some are school going children getting their education. It was asserted that he requires allotment of building for residence and professional work and also gave further details of the facts and circumstances under which he was compelled to vacate the premises which he was occupying. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer (for short the Prescribed Authority), vide order dated 12101979 allotted the said premises 4, Civil Lines, Faizabad to the petitioner Sri Mitrasen Yadav by holding that the application for allotment filed by Sri H.P. Dube was defective and that Sri Dube can get the building repaired by the landlady under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. He allotted the premises to Sri Yadav as he had no. accommodation in the town and his need was greater than the need of the opposite party No. 3 H.P. Dube whose application was defective as all the information required to be given in the application for allotment was not furnished by filling up Columns 6 to 8 of the prescribed form. Aggrieved by this order opposite party No. 3, Sri H.P. Dube, filed revision under Section 18 of the Act which was heard and allowed by the District Judge, Faizabad vide order dated 2531980 and the allotment order dated 12101979, was set aside and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for rehearing in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. Learned District Judge had held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer though rejected the application of Sri Dube on the ground that Columns 6 to 8 of the application form had not been properly filled in, but he failed to notice that the application of Sri Yadav was also defective likewise. It was further observed that. From the affidavit filed by Sri Dube it Was apparent that he had indicated that he was occupying House No. 4/1/11, Dhara Road, Faizabad, He gave its description, Sri Dube had crossed the Column No 7 of the application meaning thereby that the information in respect of it Was nil. Column No. 8 was not scored out. From the affidavit filed by Sri Dube it Was apparent that he had indicated that he was occupying House No. 4/1/11, Dhara Road, Faizabad, He gave its description, Sri Dube had crossed the Column No 7 of the application meaning thereby that the information in respect of it Was nil. Column No. 8 was not scored out. Since the information was available from the affidavit the mere fact that this was not given in the application, though it was desireable, it cannot be said that the application was bad on this account. If the application of Sri Dube Was bad the application of Sri Mitrasen on this ground was equally bad, Sri Mitrasen could not have been allotted the premises in preference to Sri Dube on this account. 4. If Was further observed by the learned District Judge that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not follow the principle laid down by. Rule 11 under the Act that first come should be first served. It is true that the need has still to be proved as laid down in 1979 Allahabad Rent Cases, 311, Dr. Shamshuddin vs. Smt. Dr. Zaibunnissan and others but that does not mean that the legal preference given under the rule has to be lost sight of, A reading of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer shows that he was influenced by the fact that earlier in the year 1977 Sri Mitra Sen had asked for accommodation which had not been allotted to him, He forgot to take notice of the fact that under Rule 10 (4) of the Act the application had to be registered from year to year and renewed, If the application Was not renewed the mere fact that the application had been made in any earlier year could not be of any assistance in judging the need. 5, White concluding, the learned District Judge had observed that Thus it appears from the record that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was mainly influenced by these circumstances to which reference has been made He did not apply his mind to the actual need of the parties. 5, White concluding, the learned District Judge had observed that Thus it appears from the record that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was mainly influenced by these circumstances to which reference has been made He did not apply his mind to the actual need of the parties. The Order of allotment was thus set aside and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for deciding it afresh on merits Aggrieved by Said order dated 2551980 passed by the District Judge, Faizabad the petitioner Sri Mitra Sen Yadav had preferred writ petition No. 1112 of 1980 which Was disposed of by Hon'ble S.C. Mathur, J maintaining the order of remand passed in revision by the District Judge. It was observed : In regard to the plea Of bonafide requirement pressed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 (Sri H.P. Dube) the allotting authority made a bald observation that the need of the petitioner was greater than the need of the opposite party No. 2. He has not recorded any finding with reference to the facts pleaded on behalf of the parties The learned District Judge has also not considered this question in detail It has been brought to the notice that after the impugned order of remand had been passed the premises occupied by opposite party No. 1 was inspected by a Rent Control Inspector, and his report has already been placed on record. The allegation of damaged nature of the house made by opposite party No. 2 wilt of course have to be decided in the light of the 'evidence led by the parties including the Inspector's report The learned counsel for the petitioner however, argued that the inspection Was not made in the presence of the petitioner and therefore, the inspection report cannot be relied upon. When the petitioner participates in the remand proceeding it will be open to him to apprise the allotting authority that the Inspector did not inspect the premises in his presence and therefore a fresh report may be obtained from him. 6. When the petitioner participates in the remand proceeding it will be open to him to apprise the allotting authority that the Inspector did not inspect the premises in his presence and therefore a fresh report may be obtained from him. 6. Against the said order petitioner Mitra Sen Yadav had filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 682 of 1982 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court Which was disposed of vide order dated 781982 (Annexure 2), quoted follow : Learned Rent Controller will dispose of the matter on merit as directed by the learned District Judges but in the light of the finding recorded by the High Court specially on the question of the regularity of the application. We might mention that the High Court has recorded a specific finding that the application for allotment filed by the petitioner was not defective in any manner and that it was alive. There shall be status quo regarding possession. Special Leave petition is disposed of in terms of the order Sd. Court Master. 7. After remand of the case, the house which was occupied by opposite party No. 3 (House No. 4/1/11, Dhara Road, Faizabad) was got inspected in presence of the parties and the Prescribed Authority after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties passed an order of allotment in favour of opposite party No. 3 Sri Harihar Prasad Dube in respect of the premises in question, namely, 4 Civil Lines Faizabad. The order of allotment dated 2761983 is contained In Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. The Prescribed Authority after considering all facts and circumstances of the case held that the house which was occupied by Sri H.P. Dube has become dilapidated and is unfit for residence and that the need of Sri Dube for the allotment of the premises In question was bona fide and genuine and thus following the principle laid down In Rule II, First Come First Served the Prescribed Authority allotted the premises 4 Civil Lines Faizabad to Sri H.P. Dube, whose application for the allotment was of the prior date. Aggrieved by this order petitioner preferred revision which was dismissed by the learned District Judge vide judgment and order dated 2411984 (Annexure6), Learned District Judge while considering the fact whether the need of opposite party No. 3 is genuine or not, observed : At the same time H.P. Dube requires premises in question for putting his family, which consists of himself, his wife and seven schoolgoing children. He Is holding office of DGC (Criminal), is required to be at Faizabad for daily court work. His children are getting education at Faizabad, The premises at 4/1/11, Dhara Road, Faizabad has been proved to be inhabitable and unfit for the use. The premises in question is necessary for giving shelter to him and his family. The learned Rent Control and Eviction Officer has found that the application of H.P. Dube was first in point of time and on the evidence on record I am in agreement with the learned Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The learned Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not mechanically followed the rule of 'first come first served as enumerated in Rule 11 under U.P. Act 13 of 1972. Learned Rent Control and Eviction Officer has considered the evidence on record and on comparison of the respective needs of the parties has found that the need of H.P. Dube was more pressing and has ultimately allotted the premises in question to H.P. Dube, on perusal of the evidence on record. I am in agreement with the view taken by Rent Control & Eviction Officer. 8. The petitioner has challenged these orders in this writ petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the impugned orders very carefully. I have also gone through the averments contained in the writ petition counteraffidavit and the rejoinder affidavit and also the supplementary affidavits filed by the parties. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A.K. Varma urged that the opposite parties 1 and 2 erred in treating the application for allotment moved by the opposite party No. 3 Sri Harihar Prasad Dube on 8th May, 1979 to be one of a prior date. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the petitioner, Sri Mitra Sen Yadav, had earlier moved an application on 7101978 for allotment of house No. 1174, Reidganj Crossing Faizabad. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the petitioner, Sri Mitra Sen Yadav, had earlier moved an application on 7101978 for allotment of house No. 1174, Reidganj Crossing Faizabad. He had applied for renewal of this application on 211979 vide annexure RA 1, and it was renewed vide order dated 911979 passed by the Prescribed Authority vide Annexure RA 2. 11. Learned counsel by referring the above vehemently contended that the application for allotment of the petitioner should have been treated to be one of the prior date than one moved by the opposite party No. 5, learned counsel thus urged that the Opposite parties 1 and 2 committed an error in not allotting the premises in question namely, 4 Civil Lines Faizabad to the petitioner by following the principle first come first served', as provided under Rule 11 (4.) of the Rules. 12. In reply learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 Sri Abdul Matin, pointed out that the petitioner Mitrasen Yadav had moved an application on 7101978 for the allotment of House No. 1174, Reidganj Crossing, Faizabad, but this application was not got renewed by the petitioner as is evident from annexure CA 8, which is a reply given by the Prescribed Authority to the questionnaire submitted by the opposite party No. 3 seeking information as to whether the application moved by Mitrasen Yadav on 7101978 for allotment in respect of House Not 1174, Reidganj dressing, Faizabad was got renewed or not in the year, 1979. The reply to the question by the Prescribed Authority, was in the negative. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 also pointed out that Annexure RA 2, which purports to be an order dated 911979 passed by the Prescribed Authority regarding renewal of the alleged application for allotment moved by the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid house is not a certified copy of that order, and,, as such,, no reliance can be placed on it specially in view of the fact that the Prescribed Authority in its reply dated 321984 has indicated that the petitioner's said application was not renewed. Apart from it learned counsel urged that even if It be taken that the petitioner had applied for renewal of his. Apart from it learned counsel urged that even if It be taken that the petitioner had applied for renewal of his. application for allotment moved on 7101978, but it would be of no relevance because the application for allotment dated 7101978 as well as the alleged application for renewal moved on 211979 by the petitioner was In respect of House No. 1174, Reidganj, Faizabad, and not In respect of the house In question namely 4, Civil Lines., Faizabad. Learned counsel pointed out that the opposite party No. 3 had applied for the allotment of the house 4, Civil Lines, Faizabad on 851979 and It was registered at Sl. No. 120, while the petitioner, Mitrasen Yadav, had moved application for allotment In respect of house, 4, Civil Lines, Faizabad on 20th June, 1979 and his application for allotment was registered at Sl. No, 152. Learned counsel, thus, urged that the application for allotment In respect of the house in question moved by opposite party No, 3 was, therefore, of a prior date than the one moved by the petitioner. Thus, the opposite parties have committed no error in making allotment of the house in question in favour of opposite party No. 3, In accordance with the principle 'first come first served as provided under Rule 11(4) of the Rules, after recording a definite positive finding that the need of the opposite party No. 3 for the allotment of the house in question was genuine and bonafide, as found on the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Having given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have committed no error In treating the application of the opposite party No. 3 to be one of the prior date and, thus, on the basis of the principle 'first come first served', the premises in question 4, Civil Lines, Faizabad have been rightly allotted to the opposite party No, 3. Rule 11 is not invalid and o it has been held to be intravires of the provisions of the Act (see Dr. Shamshuddin v. Dr. Zaimulnishan, 1979 All Rent Cases, 311 (N.B.). Thus, in my opinion, the opposite parties 1 and 2 cannot be said to have committed any error in adhering to the said principle 'first come first served', while making allotment of the premises in question. Shamshuddin v. Dr. Zaimulnishan, 1979 All Rent Cases, 311 (N.B.). Thus, in my opinion, the opposite parties 1 and 2 cannot be said to have committed any error in adhering to the said principle 'first come first served', while making allotment of the premises in question. It is evident that the earlier application for allotment dated 7101978 moved by the petitioner was in respect of House No. 1174, Reidganj, Faizabad and the petitioner, according to his own showing, had applied for the renewal of his application for allotment in respect of the said house, as is evident by Annexure RA1. Thus even if the order dated 911979, as contained in Annexure RA2, which is not a certified copy, be taken to have been passed by the Prescribed Authority for the renewal of the petitioner's application, but that would not assist the petitioner because the renewal application was only in respect of House No. 1174, Reidganj, Faizabad. The petitioner had, admittedly, applied for the allotment of the house in question, namely, 4 Civil Lines, Faizabad, on 2061979 which was registered at SI. No. 152 (Annexure 8). The opposite party No. 3, Harihar Prasad Dube, had moved an application for allotment on 851979 in respect of House No. 4, Civil Lines, Faizabad and it was registered at SI. No. 120. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim priority in respect of this particular house 4, Civil Lines, Faizabad, on the basis of his aforesaid earlier applications which were not in respect of the house in question. The Prescribed Authority has to strictly follow the principle 'first come first served considering the applications for allotment moved in respect of that particular house under consideration and priority in allotment is to be given to one whose application is first in point of time in respect of the premises in question. In Mohd. Umar v. District Judge and others, ( 1975 AWC 542 ), more or less similar question cropped up for consideration on the facts that the petitioner Mohd. Umar had filed an application on 591972 for allotment of any house, without disclosing the number or particulars. The respondent had filed an application on 21111972 mentioning specifically the house in question for being allotted to him. The petitioner had thereafter filed fresh application on 6121972 for allotment of the said house. Umar had filed an application on 591972 for allotment of any house, without disclosing the number or particulars. The respondent had filed an application on 21111972 mentioning specifically the house in question for being allotted to him. The petitioner had thereafter filed fresh application on 6121972 for allotment of the said house. The Prescribed Authority considered these applications and having found that the application of respondent No. 4 was prior in time to that of petitioner, allotted the house to respondent No. 4. In appeal filed by the petitioner, District Judge had maintained the order of the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner Mohd. Umar in the writ petition had contended that in view of earlier application dated 591972, although the same was not in respect of the particular house in question, should have been treated as of the prior time to that filed by the respondent No. 4. Rejecting the contention, it was held by Hon'ble K.C. Agarwal, J. that: It is admitted that the application dated 591972 did not give the details about the house in respect of which the said application was filed. This application, therefore, cannot be treated as one having been made by the petitioner regarding the house in question. So far as the application made by respondent No. 4 is concerned, it is admitted that the same was prior to that of the petitioner which had been filed on 6121972. Accordingly, the learned District Judge, cannot be said to have committed any error in affirming the Judgment of the Prescribed Authority by holding that the claim of the petitioner on the basis of priorities was rightly negatived. 14. In view of the above I find that the petitioner cannot claim priority in respect of the house in question (4, Civil Lines, Faizabad), on the basis of his aforesaid application for allotment dated 7101978 and its subsequent alleged renewal. His application dated 20th June, 1979 moved for the allotment of the house in question was registered at SI. No. 152 while the application for allotment moved by opposite party No. 3 was of prior date, namely 851979 and registered at SI. No. 120. His application dated 20th June, 1979 moved for the allotment of the house in question was registered at SI. No. 152 while the application for allotment moved by opposite party No. 3 was of prior date, namely 851979 and registered at SI. No. 120. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he should have been given priority in respect of the house in question on the basis of the aforesaid earlier applications, which were for another House No, 1174, Reidganj, Faizabad. 15. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that the application for allotment moved by opposite party No. 3 deserves to be rejected as he had not filled up columns Nos. 6 to 8 of the application Contained in prescribed Form 'A'. It was urged that since Column Nos. 6 to 8 were not filled up by the opposite party No. 3, and, as such, his application for allotment could not be registered nor it could be considered on merits by the Prescribed Authority while making allotment of the house in question. I do not find any merit in this contention as well. 16. It is not disputed that the opposite party No. 3 had moved an application for allotment on the prescribed Form 'A'. The particular Column No, 6 of the application was in respect of the details of the accommodation presently occupied by the applicant in the same city. Against this column it was mentioned by the applicant that : It has been rendered unfit for residence by the present landlord. Column No. 9 required information about the reasons why the applicant required to leave the present building and against it, it was mentioned that since the residence has been rendered unfit. Against Columns 7 and 8 crossmarks' were put by the applicant, which related to the information on the point 'whether the applicant or any member of his family or any person of whose family the applicant is member owns any building in the same city and whether the applicant is occupying any building allotted under the Act or under the old Act or any public premises anywhere in the State. The opposite party No. 3 had subsequently also filed affidavit indicating that the premises 4/1/11, Dhara Road, Faizabad has been rendered unfit for residence on account of the illegal and unauthorised act of demolition and damage caused to the building by the landlord. He also filed evidence to indicate that in spite of injunction order passed against the landlord in a suit filed by him for restraining him from causing damage to the building, the landlord had illegally got certain portion of the building demolished rendering it unfit for residence and as a consequence of it the opposite party No. 3 had taken abode as a licensee in another house of one Sri Ravindra Nath Srivastava. The opposite party No. 3 had thus furnished details of the accommodation which was occupied by him and also led evidence to indicate that those premises were rendered unfit for residence and thereby compelling him to seek abode as licensee elsewhere which could be secured only because of the sympathy shown to him by Sri Ravindra Nath Srivastava in accommodating him and his family temporarily in his house. The opposite party No. 3 has thus, led very convincing evidence through affidavits to indicate that his need for allotment of the premises in question was bonafide, genuine and pressing. I have also perused the application for allotment moved by the opposite party No. 3 and I may say that there appears to be no deliberate omission on the part of opposite party No. 3 in not mentioning in detail about the house in his tenancy in column No. 6 of the prescribed form for allotment. The details regarding the house occupied by the opposite party No. 3 and damage caused to it by the landlord, were furnished in the affidavit filed by opposite party No. 3. The Prescribed Authority, by his earlier order, rejected the application for allotment of opposite party No. 3 on the erroneous ground that the application of opposite party No. 3 was defective, vide order dated 12th October, 1979. This order was set aside by the District Judge holding that the application was not bad on the ground that Columns 6 to 8 of the application were not properly filled in. This order was set aside by the District Judge holding that the application was not bad on the ground that Columns 6 to 8 of the application were not properly filled in. The learned District Judge by setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority by which the premises were allotted to Sri Mitrasen Yadav, had remanded the case for rehearing on merits. This order of remand was upheld by this court, vide order dated 451982, passed in Writ Petition No. 1112 of 1980 filed by Sri Mitrasen Yadav, challenging the order of the District Judge. The special leave petition moved by the petitioner Sri Mitra Sen Yadav was disposed of vide order dated 1781982 already referred to above. 17. After the remand of the case the Prescribed Authority gave due opportunity of hearing to the parties and passed the impugned order of allotment in favour of opposite party No. 3, The applications for allotment moved by the parties were Considered on merits and that appears to have been rightly done, because none of the aforesaid two applications for allotment moved by the parties in respect of the house in question 4, Civil Lines, Faizabad, could be rejected being defective. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, urged that the application for allotment filed by opposite party No, 3 should have been rejected being defective or in the alternative should be treated to have been filed on the date when he had filed the affidavit furnishing detailed particulars with regard to the house 4/1/11 Dhara Road, Faizabad in his tenancy and thus the petitioner should have been allotted premises following the rule of first come first served, His contention was mat since the opposite party No. 3 had not properly filled up Columns 6 to 8 of his application dated 851979 for allotment, and as such, although it was filed and registered earlier than the one moved by the petitioner in respect of house No. 4, Civil Line, Faizabad, the same should have been treated to have been moved on the date when he filed affidavit giving details with regard to the premises ii his tenancy. 19. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid contention. Firstly, because the application for allotment moved by the opposite party No, 3 cannot be said to suffer from any such vital defect so as to merit its rejection. 19. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid contention. Firstly, because the application for allotment moved by the opposite party No, 3 cannot be said to suffer from any such vital defect so as to merit its rejection. As already observed above, the opposite party No. 3, in Column 6 of the application, which required information about the accommodation presently occupied by the applicant in the same city, had mentioned that it has been rendered unfit for residence by the present landlord, and in Column 9 which required reasons to be mentioned as to why applicant wants to leave the present house in his tenancy, the reason was mentioned that since the residence has been rendered unfit. Against Columns 7 and 8 a crossmark was put, which required information on the point whether, the applicant or any member of his family owns any building in the city, or is occupying any building allotted under the Act or any public premises anywhere In the State. Thus, putting a cross mark against Columns 7 and 8 means an answer in the negative. Although much details with regard to house in the tenancy of the opposite party No. 3 Were not mentioned in Column 6 of the application, yet merely on that ground the allotment application would not merit rejection. Secondly, it has come on record that further details to regard to the house in his tenancy, which was rendered inhabitable by wrong and illegal action of the landlord, were mentioned in affidavit filed by opposite party No. 3. Thus the details in respect of house in his tenancy namely, 4/1/11. Dhara Road, Faijabad, were brought on records by the opposite party No. 3 when the matter of the allotment of premises was considered by the opposite party No. 2. I, therefore, do not find the allotment application of the opposite party No. 3, which he had filed on 851979 to be incompetent so as to merit its rejection on that ground. Even if by taking extreme view it may be said that on account of omission to mention much more details in Column 6 in respect of house in his tenancy in the allotment application, the same may be taken to be defective, but that defect would not merit rejection, because such defects, if any, could be removed on being brought to notice subsequently. 20. 20. It is not disputed that in the present case when the opposite party No. 3 had filed the all 3traent application, the Prescribed Authority had not pointed out any defect in his application while registering it. The defects in allotment application, if any, should have been pointed out to the applicant by the concerned authority prior to its registration so that the same could be removed but if the defects were not brought to the notice of the applicant and the application was registered, the same cannot be thrown out being defective without bringing those defects to the notice of the applicant to remove those defects and correct the error, if any, In taking this view I feel fortified by the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Udai Bhatt Gupta v. Hari Shankar Bansal and others (AIR 1984 S.C. 1963 wherein appellant had filed a revision in the High Court which was timebarred but the defect Was not pointed out to the appellant by the Registry of the High Court while registering the revision. The revision was rejected by the High Court being barred by limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and the matter was remitted to the High Court permitting the appellant to move an appropriate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay because that defect was not pointed out to the applicant by the Registry of the High Court while registering the revision. It Was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that : Whenever and appeal or a revision petition is filed in the Registry of the High Court the defects have to be pointed out and If the revision petition filed by the appellant Is barred by limitation, the Registry ought to point out the defect which would prompt the appellant to seek condonation of delay. 21. Thus in view of the above, I am of opinion that the Prescribed Authority or the concerned official while registering the application for allotment should have brought to the notice of the applicant about the omission, If any, In filling up any particular column of the application form or in not giving any detailed information In respect of any matter so as to prompt him to remove such defects, If any. In my opinion, any such defects could be removed not only at the time of registration of the application for allotment but also even subsequently because there appears to be no legal bar in the removal of such defect subsequently by amending the application and providing Information with regard to the required particulars in any column of the application form, specially when such defects were not pointed out at the time of registration of the application. Any amendment so made will, in my opinion, relate back to the date of the filing and registration of the application for allotment and it would not make the application liable to be treated as a fresh application of the date on which the defects in application, if any, are removed or the detailed particulars of any facts are subsequently placed on record before the Prescribed Authority at the time when he considers the matter regarding allotment of the premises. I also find no merit in the contention that if any affidavit is filed by the applicant Subsequently before the Prescribed Authority, indicating therein the details about the premises In his tenancy which has been rendered unfit for residence, It would render the application for allotment filed and registered earlier to be a fresh application of the date when the affidavit was filed. In this view of the matter I do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I find that no error has been committed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 in treating the application of opposite party No. 3 for allotment of the premises in question to be one of the prior date and allotting the premises to him following the rule 'first come first served' contained in Rule 11(1) of the Act. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have erred in treating the premises house No. 4/1/11, Dhara Road, Faizabad which was occupied by opposite party No. 3 to be in dilapidated Condition and unfit for residence. Learned counsel urged that the building which could be treated to be dilapidated should be one beyond repairs and In support of his Contention he placed reliance upon the decision Smt. Chando Devi v. III Addl. Learned counsel urged that the building which could be treated to be dilapidated should be one beyond repairs and In support of his Contention he placed reliance upon the decision Smt. Chando Devi v. III Addl. District Judge, Atathura, (1984(1) ARC 10 1934(2) LCD 45), wherein said observation was made while considering the provisions of Section 21(1)(i) of the Act which provide that the tenant can be evicted from the premises on an application for release moved by the landlord under Section 21 on the ground that the building is in dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and reconstruction. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the said decision, but in the present case it is not required to be considered as to whether the building has been rendered in such a dilapidated stage as it is not beyond repairs and required its demolition and reconstruction. Whether the premises has been rendered unfit and unsafe for residence was the question required to be Considered in the present case. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 (after considering the evidence on record and the inspection reports, came to the conclusion that the house (4/1/11, Dhara Road, Faizabad) which was in occupation of opposite party No. 3, was rendered unfit for residence and the opposite party No. 3 was compelled to leave the same and take abode as a licensee in another house referred to above. While determining the question whether the building has been rendered unfit and unsafe for residence it is not necessary that the building should be infilling stage or ruinous condition. No hard and fast rule or criteria can be laid down for determining whether the building has become dilapidated and unfit for residence or not and the matter has to be left to the discretion of the Prescribed Authority on the facts of each case. In the present case a concurrent finding has been recorded by opposite parties 1 and 2, holding that the premises (4/1/11, Dhara Road, Faizabad) which was in the tenancy of opposite party No. 3, has been proved to be inhabitable and unfit for use and occupation. In the present case a concurrent finding has been recorded by opposite parties 1 and 2, holding that the premises (4/1/11, Dhara Road, Faizabad) which was in the tenancy of opposite party No. 3, has been proved to be inhabitable and unfit for use and occupation. I have carefully gone through the impugned orders passed by opposite parties 1 and 2 and I do not find any infirmity in the said finding so as to call for Interference by this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. It is, no doubt, correct to say that while applying the principle of first come first served, the authorities must also find out whether the need for allotment of the applicant whose name is prior in time, is bona fide or not. Before applying the said rule the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has got to consider the bonafide need of the applicant and after having found that need of the applicant is genuine, he has then to take resort to clause (in) of Rule 11 for making an allotment in his favour provided other applicants do riot fall in the clauses (z) and (ii) of Rule 11(1). The Rent Control and Eviction Officer is not obliged to allot the premises to a person merely on the ground that he was the first to apply for the allotment in respect of that house. He will be entitled to get the premises allotted only if the Prescribed Authority comes to a conclusion that the need of the applicant for the allotment of house is genuine, bonafide and pressing. The Prescribed Authority has to ascertain objectively this question after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and if he comes to the conclusion that the applicant who was the first to apply for the allotment of the premises in question, genuinely and bonafide needs the premises, he will allot the same to him following the principle of first come first served. In the present case a concurrent finding has been recorded to the effect that the need of opposite party No. 3 for the allotment of the premises in question is bonafide, genuine and pressing. In the present case a concurrent finding has been recorded to the effect that the need of opposite party No. 3 for the allotment of the premises in question is bonafide, genuine and pressing. I have perused the impugned orders very carefully and I do not find any infirmity in that finding so as to call for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 24. No other point is raised and pressed before me. 25. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed and the interim order of stay dated 27.1.1984 is hereby vacated. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.N. Varma, however, urged that the petitioner who is at present occupying the premises in question, 4 Civil Lines, Faizabad, be permitted to stay on in the premises for six months and he will be vacating the premises immediately on the expiry of the said period without any let or hindrance. As I find that the opposite party No.3 is apparently in great hardship and requires the allotted premises for his residence. I think that such a long period cannot be granted. The petitioner is, however, granted two month's time from today, to vacate the premises, provided he files an affidavit before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Prescribed Authority, Faizabad within ten days from today, giving an undertaking to the effect that he will vacate the premises in question (4, Civil Lines, Faizabad) without any let or hindrance and handover its vacant possession to opposite party No. 3 immediately on the expiry of the period of two months from today. In case the required undertaking is not furnished by the petitioner within the aforesaid time, this order will automatically cease to be operative and the opposite party No. 3 will be entitled to get possession over the allotted premises (4, Civil Lines, Faizabad), forthwith, according to law. But if the petitioner will furnish the aforesaid undertaking before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Faizabad within the said stipulated period, the opposite party No. 3 would not get possession of the said allotted premises till the expiry of the aforesaid period of two months from today and he will be entitled to get possession only on the expiry of the said period. 27. In the circumstances of the case I, however, direct the parties to bear their own costs. (Petition dismissed)