Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 121 (UTT)

Prem Chand v. District Judge, Dehradun

2004-07-31

RAJESH TANDON

body2004
Judgment By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for writ certiorari quashing the order dated 27-7-1985 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was a tenant of the accommodation in question which was declared as vacant on 22-2-1985 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner' has applied for allotment however the landlord has applied for release under section 16 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner has filed objection against the release application of the landlord. 3. The R.C. & E.O. vide 'order dated 7-5-1985 rejected the release application against which the landlord has preferred a revision before the District Judge. The District Judge has passed order releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlord. 4. Notices were sent to the petitioner as well as the respondents as the file has been transferred from Allahabad High Court but none appeared for either of the parties. 5. I have perused the record of the writ petition. In my opinion, the petitioner has no locus standi in as much as the R.C. & E.O. has wrongly permitted the petitioner to participate in the proceedings while hearing the release application. The matter was between the landlord and the District Magistrate and the Authority concerned was not justified by entertaining the objection filed by the petitioner against the release application in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in 1995 (2) ARC 1, Vijay Kumar Sonkar vs. Incharge District Judge and others. Approving the Full Bench decision by the Allahabad High Court, the Apex Court has held as under: "It is on this understanding of the law that the High Court relying on its Full Bench decision in the case of Talib Husain vs. 1st Addl. District Judge, 1986 (1) ARC 1 (SC): 1986 SCFBRC 369 (Alld) (FB): AIR 1986 A lid 196 (FB) : 1986 All. L.J. 845 (FB), rejected the prayer of the prospective tenant that he had a right to be heard in a release application of the landlord based as it was on the provisions of sub section (2) of section 16 on ground of bona fide requirement. L.J. 845 (FB), rejected the prayer of the prospective tenant that he had a right to be heard in a release application of the landlord based as it was on the provisions of sub section (2) of section 16 on ground of bona fide requirement. On the allowing of the release application the premises in question ceased to be allotable and since the District Magistrate, thereafter would have no jurisdiction to make an allotment thereof and the prospective tenant consequently has no right to resist the landlord in release proceedings. The view of the High Court Seems to us to be correct in the circumstances of the case as also in law because as of today no allotment order subsists in favour of the appellant and yet he continues to be in possession. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. " 6. In view of the aforesaid preposition of law the writ petition falls and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.