HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 3890 (M/S) of 2001 (Old No. 13474/1988) Bhagwati Charan, S/o Dwarika Prasad, R/o Mall Godam Kotdwar, District- Pauri Garhwal. ……….Petitioner Versus 1. District Judge (Acting as appellate authority under U.P. Act No. 13/1972). 2. Pargana Magistrate/Prescribed Authority Kotdwar (Acting under aforesaid Act.) 3/1 Smt. Dikku Devi Negi W/o Late Alam Singh Negi (deceased). 3/2 Sri Raj Mohan Singh Negi, S/o Late Alam Singh Negi. 3/3 Sri. Krishan Singh Negi, S/o Late Alam Singh Negi, All R/o Mohalla Moti Bazar, Dugged Kotdwar (Pauri Garhwal). .…..Respondents Sri J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner Sri Raman Kumar Sah, Advocate for the respondents Dated: 2.8.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.3.1998, passed by the respondent No. 1. Briefly stated, the application for release was filed by the petitioner under section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, being owner and landlord of the building and was under the tenancy of the respondent No. 3, and the vacancy was sought to be declared under section 12(3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the 2 respondent No. 3 has constructed his own house. Release application was allowed on declaration of vacancy on 5.3.1986 and the premises was released on 05.06.1987 under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The respondent No. 3 has filed a revision against the order dated 05.06.1987, allowing the release application. The revision was allowed on 23.3.1988 and the order dated 5.6.1987 was set aside. In fact, the revisional court has no jurisdiction to interfere under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the declaration of vacancy. Further more so far as release is concerned, the revisional court has no jurisdiction to look into the bona-fide need of the landlord on the revision filed by the prospective allottee in view of the full bench decision of Allahabad High Court reported in Talib Hassan and another Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge, Nainital and others reported in 1987 (1) A.R.C. 18, which has been followed in the case of Vijay Kumar Sonkar Vs. Incharge District Judge and others reported in 1995(2) ARC 1, wherein it has been 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 Hassan v. Ist Addl. District Judge, 1986(1) ARC 1(SC) : 1986 SCFBRC 369 (Alld) (FB) : AIR 1986 Alld 196 (FB) : 1986 All LJ 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 bana 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 3 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. The appellant is directed to vacate the premises within one month. It is made clear that he is not debarred form seeking another allotment order of any other premises if he has any such right in accordance with law”. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the matter is sent back to the Rent Control and Eviction officer for passing the order on the release application ignoring the objection filed by the prospective allottee. The writ petition, therefore, is allowed. Matter is remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for deciding afresh in the light of the observations made above. No order as to costs. Rajesh Tandon, J.