Smt. A. Albert alias Smt. Rekha Sharma vs VIIIth Addl. District Judge and Others

R.S. Dhavan, J.—The Petitioner is a prospective allottee. The release application of the landlord was allowed on 16th April, 1986 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bulandshahr. The release had been made on the ground that the landlord had required it after demolition for a new construction, as in its present state it could not be used. The landlord had satisfied the Rent Control and Eviction Officer through expert evidence that there was a risk in occupying the accommodation in its present form. In pursuance of a well considered order the Rent Control and Eviction Officer granted the release on 16th April, 1986.

This order aggrieved the Petitioner. As stated, she is a prospective allottee. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that she has a right of say upon the consideration of the release application of the landlord.

The Petitioner felt aggrieved by order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of 16th April, 1986 aforesaid and, thus, filed a revision No. 8 of 1986 before the VIII Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, A. Albert alias Rekha Sharma v. Sri Narain Vaish. The learned District Judge considered the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner. The learned District Judge rejected the revision on the ground that a prospective allottee has no locus standi when the release application of the landlord was being considered. The learned District Judge relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court, reported in 1985 AWC 1001 (FB), Talib Hussain v. 1st Addl. District Judge, Nainital. The Full Bench has laid down:

....

So far, therefore, as the scheme of the Act and the rules framed there under is concerned, the same, in our opinion, clearly points to the conclusion that a prospective allottee has no right of objection against the release application filed u/s 16(1). As mentioned above, this right to have this application considered for allotment accrues only after the rejection of the release application. Indeed the consideration of the application for allotment is taken up only after the rejection of the application u/s 16(1). Neither the Act nor the rules framed there under thus postulate any right in a prospective allottee to file objections against the release application.

The prospective allottee has also no right or interest in the property or claim against, the landlord so as to be entitled to any hearing in the disposal of the release application on general principles or doctrine of audi alteram partern.

The learned District Judge merely followed the decision of this Court (supra). Notwithstanding that the Petitioner or her counsel was not present, the learned District Judge on the decision of the Full Bench, aforesaid, declared that a prospective allottee has no right to be heard when the release application of the landlord was being considered. Thus, the learned District Judge has committed no error, manifest or otherwise, nor any illegality in the order of 11th March, 1987 that the revision filed by the Petitioner-prospective allottee was not maintainable, when she was not heard during the consideration of the release application of the landlord. Accordingly, this Court cannot interfere with the decision of the learned District Judge, Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed.