Full Judgment
Yatindra Singh, J.
1. Is a nominee of the landlord, under Section 17 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (the Act for short), a person aggrieved? Can he file a revision under Section 18 of the Act? These are the questions involved in the present writ petition. This is how they arise.
FACTS
2. Sri Banwarilal, respondent No. 4 was the landlord of the shop in question. One Sunder Prakash was tenant of the same. Landlord filed a suit for ejectment against the tenant. It was decreed. The landlord had filed an application for release of the shop on 6.8.1979 on the ground that shop is likely to fall vacant. The tenant was ejected and vacancy occurred in the shop in question. Applications for allotment were also filed : Pramod Kumar (respondent No. 3) filed one application on 28.8.1979 ; Jaipal Singh (petitioner) filed another application on 29.8.1979. The landlord did not press his application for release ; it was dismissed as not pressed on 29.2.1980. When no allotment was made within 21 days, the landlord nominated the petitioner (his son) for allotment on 25.3.1980 under Section 17 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer (respondent No. 2), neither allotted the premises to him nor did he allot it to any other person within ten days from receipt of the intimation of the nomination. The matter was kept pending and ultimately he, by his order dated 19.6.1981, did not accept the nomination of the landlord but allotted the premises to the respondent No. 3. Petitioner, the landlord's nominee, filed a revision. This revision has been dismissed on 19.3.1982 by the IInd Additional District Judge. Muzaffarnagar, (respondent No. 1) (hereinafter referred to as the revisional court). He has not decided the revision on merits but has dismissed it on the ground that : the nominee of the landlord is not a person aggrieved ; and he is not entitled to file a revision under Section 18 of the Act. This wasdone on the basis of a judgment in Dayaram v. IVth Additional District Judge, 1980 (2) UPRCC 422. Hence the present writ petition.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION :
3. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The following is the only point for determination in the writ petition :
1. Is a nominee of the landlord, in case he is not allotted the premises, a person aggrieved? Can he file a revision under Section 18 of the Act?
DAYARAM'S CASE
4. Respondent No. 1 has rejected the revision as not maintainable on the basis of Dayaram's case. In this case the revision filed by the nominee of the landlord was dismissed on the merits. Thereafter he filed a writ petition. The High Court, in paragraph 5 of the judgment, held, The view of the Courts below, therefore, that the landlord not having sent the intimation within the mandatory period of one week from the date of the building falling vacant, he cannot claim to exercise the right given under Section 17 (1) of the Act appears to be perfectly correct'. It was then in paragraph 6 of the judgment, that certain observations regarding maintainability of the revision by the nominee of a landlord have been mentioned. These observations were not necessary to decide the case and are in the nature of obiter.
PROSPECTIVE ALLOTTEE-RIGHT
5. The counsel for the respondents have also cited two decisions in Talib Hassan v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital, 1986 ARC 1 (FB) and M. R. Loiya v. G. D. Richariya. 1986 AWC 68, for the proposition that the nominee is like a prospective allottee, he has no say in the matter. It is true that the prospective allottee has no say in the proceeding for release of the shop in favour of the landlord. In the present case, the dispute is not between a nominee or a prospective allottee or an unauthorised person on one side and landlord on the other side. The dispute is between two persons whoclaim that the shop should be allotted to them. In Talib Hasain's case and M.R. Loiya's case, the dispute was between the landlord on the one side and a prospective allottee in one case and unauthorised occupant in the other case. These cases are not applicable. In these proceedings, we are not concerned with release of the shop but with the allotment proceeding. The Court below had to decide as between the two, namely, the petitioner and the respondent, who was entitled to the allotment under the law. This is a different question.
NOMINEE--PERSON AGGRIEVED
6. Petitioner is a nominee of the landlord. He had also filed an application for allotment. He is interested in the allotment. In case it is allotted to anyone else, then he is aggrieved by that order. It is true that the, landlord is also a person aggrieved in such a case ; but this does not mean that his nominee has no rights or is not a person aggrieved in case premises are allotted to anyone else. The nomination confers a right. Petitioner was a person aggrieved. He had locus standi to file the revision against the order allotting the premises to respondent No. 3. The order passed by the revisional court dated 19.3.1982 is illegal.
7. Petitioner is the son of the landlord. The counsel for the respondent has raised a plea that landlord cannot nominate his own son for allotment. He may get it released in case he or his son bona fide requires it. The revisional court has not decided the case on merits but has held the revision to be not maintainable. I think it will not be appropriate to express any opinion on this question. It will be open to respondent No. 3 to raise this question before the revisional court. The revisional court may decide the revision on merit without being influenced by any observations made in this judgment.
CONCLUSION
8. The writ petition is allowed. The case is sent back. The revisionalcourt will re-decide the revision onmerits in accordance with law.Parties will appear before the DistrictJudge, Muzaffarnagar, on 25thAugust, 1999. He may decide therevision himself or transfer it to someother Additional District Judge fordecision.