Vikram Nath, J.@mdashThis writ petition filed by the landlord against the judgment and order dated 612001 passed by III A.D.J., Deoria in Rent Control Revision No. 1 of 2000, whereby the order of release passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, dated 692000, has been set aside and the matter has been remanded for reconsideration.
2. The question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the occupant of the premises in dispute having been declared to be an unauthorized occupant can maintain revision against the order of release passed in favour of the landlord under Section 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. The dispute relates to house No. 5/368 Sindhi Mill Colony, Deoria of which the petitioner Ram Karan Singh is the owner and landlord. Ram Karan Singh filed an application for release of the premises on the ground that it had become vacant on account of the earlier tenant having left the premises as he had shifted to another district and respondent No. 3 Devata Rai had been illegally inducted into the premises without there being any order of allotment or the consent of the landlord nor was he a family member of the out going tenant Ram Ji Verma. On the said application. Case No. 14 of 1994 was registered in the Court of Rent Control and Eviction Officer Deoria. It was contended by Devta Rai on the ground that he had entered into possession with the permission of landlord and was paying rent to the landlord who had accepted the same and that his possession was prior to the coming of the Act and as such there was no vacancy.
4. It would be worth while to mention here that Devta Rai respondent No. 3 had filed Original Suit No. 538 of 1993 for injunction against the landlord from being dispossessed. The Trial Court after considering the contention of the parties by detailed order rejected the application of interim relief vide order dated 1071998. Against the said order Devta Rai filed a Misc. Appeal which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 74 of 1998. The IV Additional District Judge, Deoria dismissed the appeal holding that the plaintiffappellant had failed to establish that he was a tenant of the premises in dispute. The contention of the occupant that he was entitled to Section 14 of the Act was also rejected by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The said order became final as they were not challenged any further.
5. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 692000 came to the conclusion that Devta Rai respondent No. 3 was unauthorized occupant and directed for release of the premises in favour of the landlord. Against the said order respondent No. 3 filed a revision under Section 18 of the Act, which has been allowed vide judgment dated 612001 and the matter sent back for reconsideration in the light of Sections 2 (a) and 14 of the Act. Against this order the present writ petition has been filed.
6. I have heard Sri Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shashi Nandan learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents No. 1 and 2.
7. Pursuant to the order dated 232001 notices were issued to Devta Rai respondent No. 3 on 2232001. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 and the registered letter was received back with endorsement in the office that Devta Rai was living elsewhere. In the meantime it was brought on record that Devta Rai respondent No. 3 had died and substitution application has been filed to bring on record the legal representative of the respondent No. 3. The petitioner thereafter took steps for service of notice and the office accordingly issued notices on 7 92004. Again no one has put in appearance. In the absence of any representative of the respondent No. 3 the petition has been heard ex parte.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No. 3 having been held to be an unauthorized occupant, had no authority or locus to file the revision against the order of release. In support of the said contention he has relied upon the following decisions:
(1) Ramesh Chand Srivastava v. XII A.D.J. Kanpur & Ors., 1997 (1) ARC 336.
(2) Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd., Allahabad & Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Agarwal & Ors., 1997 (30) ALR 142.
(3) Vinod Kumar v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur & Ors., 1999(1) JCLR 7 (All) : 1998 (34) ALR 524.
9. In all the above cases it has been held that an unauthorized occupant has no right to object to the release proceeding or to challenge an order of release either in revision or by way of writ petition. All these decisions are based upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Talib Hasan v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital & Ors., 1986 (12) ALR 113 (FB), wherein this Court dealing with the right of the prospective allottee has held that prospective allottee has no right to file objection against the release application of the landlord filed under Section 16 of the Act. Applying the same analogy it has been repeatedly held that an unauthorized occupant also stand on the same footing and his application for allotment would also be considered only after the release of the landlord is rejected. The unauthorized occupant has no better stand than that of prospective allottee and as such could not have either objected to the release application nor could maintain the revision and all the more when he had himself failed before the Civil Court and the finding recorded while considering the interim injunction application was that he was not a tenant and was only an unauthorized occupant.
10. Learned Additional District Judge while deciding the revision has noted this argument of the petitioner that Devta Rai (respondent 3) could not maintain the revision but he has not recorded any finding on the same and has proceeded to allow the revision on the question which already stands settled by this Court.
11. In the circumstances, the order passed by Revisional Court cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside and the revision is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 612001 passed by the respondent No. 1 is set aside, the revision filed by the respondent No. 3 is dismissed and the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Deoria, dated 692000 is restored.
There shall be no order as to costs.
