IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 498 of 2009 Ramavtar, S/o Late Sri Mangal Sain, R/o 64, Mannuganj, Dehradun, District Dehradun. ……………Petitioner. Versus Shamshad Ahmed, S/o Sri Haji Ishtaq Ahmed R/o 44, Gandhi Road, Dehradun, District Dehradun. …………Respondent. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. (2) By means of this petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.03.2009, passed by Additional District Judge / IV Fast Track Court, Dehradun, in Rent Control Revision No. 131 of 2007. (3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent Shamshad Ahmed is owner and landlord of the accommodation in question, which was allotted in favour of the petitioner. The landlord had nominated one Datar Singh as his nominee for the purposes of allotment, but no allotment order was passed in his favour. Consequently, in the earlier round of litigation, revisions were filed and ultimately a Writ Petition No. 11533 of 2 1980 was filed in which the matter was remanded for reconsideration of the matter. Again, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the accommodation in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, Revision No. 130 of 2007 was filed by Datar Singh and Revision No. 131 of 2007 was filed by respondent-Shamshad Ahmed. Both the revisions were allowed vide impugned order dated 28.03.2009, challenged before this Court. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to ‘explanation’ to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, which reads as under:- “The power to rescind the final order under this sub-section shall not include the power to pass an allotment order or to direct the passing of an allotment order in favour of a person different from the allottee mentioned in the order under revision.” (5) Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner further drew attention of this Court to the penultimate Para of the impugned order in which the revisional court has observed as under:- “…….Rent Control and Eviction Officer is directed to make a formal order of allotment in favour of the revisionist Datar Singh under the provisions of Section 16(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Act within a period of one month from the date of receiving the copy of this order.” 3 (6) Said direction in the impugned order is against the spirit of the explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the aforesaid Act. (7) In the above circumstances, this petition is summarily disposed of expunging the above quoted observation from the impugned order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer may pass fresh orders in compliance of impugned order dated 28.03.2009, passed by Additional District Judge / IV Fast Track Court, Dehradun, in RCR No. 131 of 2007, without getting guided by the aforementioned observation (expunged by this Court). (Stay Application No. 2543 of 2009 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant., J.) 06.04.2009 NS