JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi 1. In this petition a caveat has been filed by Shri Pramod Kumar Jain and he has put in appearance for respondent no. 2. Both the learned counsel for parties are agreed that the petition may be decided finally at this stage as only questions of law are involved for deciding the present petition. 2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent no. 2 let out a part of house no. i60. Bankers Street, Meerut Cantt in favour of petitioner Ram Kumar in 1981 this portion was in occupation of the petitioner as tenant without any allotment order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner continued as tenant since 1981. However, some litigation was initiated between the parties. Apprehending that the petitioner may be evicted, he filed an application for allotment of the accommodation in dispute in his favour on 18-8-1990 in this application for allotment, the petitioner stated that he is tenant of the building for the last nine years. The landlord had promised to get it allotted in his favour. However, he now wants to dispossess the petitioner and case he is ejected, he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury hence the house may be allotted in his favour. On this application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 26-7-1991 declared the accommodation in dispute vacant in view of the admitted fact between the parties that the house was let out without any allotment order in favour of the petitioner and such a possession could be only unauthorised under the provisions of the Act. On the accommodation in dispute being declared vacant, landlord filed an application under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act for release of the same in his favour. Respondent No 2 landlord filed affidavits in support of his application for release. The petitioner had also 61filed affidavits opposing the release sought by the respondent no. 2 Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 26-9-1991 rejected the release application with the finding that the release application filed by the respondent no. 2 has not been filed in good faith, as the petitioner was allowed by him to occupy the accommodation as tenant and he is living there for the last nine years. The landlord never applied before for release of the accommodation in dispute. 2 has not been filed in good faith, as the petitioner was allowed by him to occupy the accommodation as tenant and he is living there for the last nine years. The landlord never applied before for release of the accommodation in dispute. The application was given only when the accommodation was declared vacant in consequence of the application made by the petitioner for allotment. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer further found that the need for release has been stated regarding the members of his family which is also incorrect, as the sons and daughters-in-law and grand-daughters mentioned in the application are living in a house situate in Shastri Nagar. It has been stated that in Shastri Nagar, son of the respondent no. 2 has acquired two houses. By another order dated 28-9-1991, the accommodation in dispute was allotted in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by these two orders, the respondent no. 2 filed two revisions which have been decided by a common judgment dated 22-10-92 by learned 7th Additional District Judge, Meerut. The revisional authority has set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and has released the accommodation in dispute in favour of respondent no. 2. Against this order the present petition has been filled. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no 2. Shri V. K. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once the accommodation in dispute was allotted in his favour, he was entitled to be heard in revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner was residing in the accommodation in dispute, he was entitled to contest the application for release and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rightly relied on the affidavits filed by him for rejecting the release application. 4. Sri P. K. Jain on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner's possession was of a prospective allottee and he could not be allowed to contest the application for release mowed by the respondent no. 2. Reliance has been placed on Talib Hassan v. 1st Addl. District Judge, Nainital, 1986 (1) ARC 1 (FB). I have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and. 2. Reliance has been placed on Talib Hassan v. 1st Addl. District Judge, Nainital, 1986 (1) ARC 1 (FB). I have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and. in my opinion, there is no dispute about the legal position of prospective allottee that he could not be allowed to contest the application for release in the sense and in the manner the contest is usually taken before the Court. To be more clear, he could not be allowed to file an objection and could not be allowed to adduce evidence in support of the same but the question remains as to whether any material which has been brought by him on record by means of affidavit or otherwise showing that the application moved by the landlord was mala fide and it could not be allowed should that be ignored on the ground that prospective allottee has no right to contest the release application. The authority of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to satisfy himself about the bona fide need of the landlord before release, cannot be denied. 5. Thus, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could gather facts himself or through any other person. In case by means of affidavits filed by the petitioner, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer felt satisfied that the need is not genuine as the petitioner's son has acquired house and he is actually residing there, in my opinion, the revisional authority was not justified in iguoring such material. Tie revisional authority could direct the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to ascertain the facts by appointing commissioner or make a local inspection himself about the facts which have come on record regarding these two houses possessed by the son of the respondent no. 2 but a material fact could not be ignored in the interest of justice. The chances of misuse of this position by the landlord cannot be ruled out as there is no contest of the release application. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer should, in such cases, be more cautious and vigilant while considering the case set up by the landlord for release of the accommodation in dispute. The chances of misuse of this position by the landlord cannot be ruled out as there is no contest of the release application. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer should, in such cases, be more cautious and vigilant while considering the case set up by the landlord for release of the accommodation in dispute. In my opinion, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer while being more cautious and vigilant and testing the version of the landlord was entitled even to go through the affidavits filed by the petitioner and they could not be ignored altogether. While satisfying himself about the bona fide and genuine need of the accommodation in dispute claimed by the landlord, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer may even invite affidavits from the parties to the proceedings. It will not be, in my opinion, in violation of any provisions of the Act or Rules. The Full Bench of this Court in Talib Hussain's case while interpreting section 16 (I) (b) of the Act and Rule 13 (4) of the Rules framed thereunder, has said that as the right of the prospective allottee for consideration of his application for allotment commences after the rejection of the release application of the landlord, he has no right or interest or locus standi to contest the release application. The contest referred to and contemplated by the Full Bench appears to be the contest in the sense of a litigation as mentioned above by filing objection and adducing evidence and then entering into elaborate arguments which may necessarily result in delay in deciding the release application. However, neither the Act nor the Rules created any fetter against the power of Rent Control and Eviction Officer to gather information for satisfying itself about the bona fide need set up by the landlord. The Full Bench relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents has also no where doubted the aforesaid power of the Rent Control and Eviction authorities which, in my opinion, vests in the authority inherently considering the nature of the functions and duties contemplated under the Act and the Rules. Thus without violating the dictim of the Full Bench, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer may take such step which according to his wisdom may be necessary for testing the bona fides of the claim of the landlord and in this process he could consider the affidavits filed before him. Thus without violating the dictim of the Full Bench, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer may take such step which according to his wisdom may be necessary for testing the bona fides of the claim of the landlord and in this process he could consider the affidavits filed before him. The legislative intent behind section 16 (1) (b) of the Act and Rule 13 appears that the release application should be decided swiftly and without any unnecessary delay but this object of the legislature cannot be defeated in case the Rent Control authorities in process of satisfying themselves about the bona fide need also take into account the material supplied by other parties to the proceedings. In absence of such a power deemed with the Rent Control authorities, chances cannot he ruled out on the part of the landlord to abuse his position and obtain release order keeping the authorities in dark about the real facts. The Rent Control authorities cannot be expected to go around and gather information or evidence They have to rely on the facts before them or the information may be supplied even by a busy body but the authority should take care that the information is worth placing reliance and for this purpose the authority may adopt such procedure as may be relevant and necessary in the circumstances of the case. In my opinion, the view taken by the revisional authority is not justified and is not correct position of law as stated by him. The order passed by the revisional authority suffers from a manifest, error of law In the facts and circumstances of the case in my opinion, the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer should also be set aside so that he may decide the case afresh in accordance with law and in the light: of the observations made above. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 22-10-1992 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Meerut and orders dated 26-9-1991 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotting the accommodation in dispute in favour of the petitioner and rejecting the release application of respondent no. 2 are hereby quashed. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 22-10-1992 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Meerut and orders dated 26-9-1991 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotting the accommodation in dispute in favour of the petitioner and rejecting the release application of respondent no. 2 are hereby quashed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall decide the application for release afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above and thereafter be shall decide the application for allotment in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within a week. Petition allowed.