JUDGMENT R.H. Zaidi, J.
1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorori, quashing the order dated 27.1.1996 whereby the building No. 25, Hazratganj, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow (for short the building in question) was allotted to respondent No. 3 and order dated 14.2.95, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid allotment order was dismissed by the District Judge, Lucknow acting as revisional authority under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act).
2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the building in question, which was in occupation of Hercules Insurance Company, which later merged into United Fire and General Insurance Company vacated the said building. Sri R. N. Kapoor, the landlord who has been arrayed as respondent No. 4 made an application for release of the said building in his favour. The release application filed by respondent No. 4 was, however, rejected by the Rent, Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 13.1.1976. Respondent No. 3 also applied for allotment of the building in question in his favour. It was on 15.1.1976 that the building in question was declared as vacant and thereafter vide order dated 25.2.1976 the same was allotted to respondent No. 3. The outgoing tenant challenged the validity of the order dated 25.2.1976 as well as order dated 15.1.1976 referred to above. The revision filed by the outgoing tenant was allowed by the revisional authority by its judgment and order dated 8.2.78.
3. Order dated 15.1.1976 and 25.2.1976 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer were set aside by the revisional authority and the case was sent back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for decision afresh after following the procedure prescribed under law. Meanwhile petitioner also applied for allotment of the building in his favour in the month of April, 1980. Rent Control and Eviction Officer after following the procedure prescribed under law again declared the building in question as vacant vide order dated 16.9.1981 and allotted the said building in favour of the petitioner on 18.7.84. The validity of the order dated 18.7.84 was challenged by the United India Fire and General Insurance Company by filing the Revision No. 35 of 1984. Respondent No. 3 also challenged the validity of the order dated 18.7.84. Revision filed by him was registered as Revision No. 34 of 1984. It will not be out of place to state that during the pendency of the said revisions, possession over the building in question was delivered to the petitioner on 21.8.1985 and after taking possession over the building in question, the petitioner invested substantial amount over it and established his business in the building in question. The aforesaid revisions were heard and decided by the judgment and order dated 15.9.1987 by the revisional authority. The revisions were allowed and the order dated 18.7.84 was set aside. The petitioner challenging the validity of the order dated 15.9.1987 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7365 of 1987. It was on 4.11.1987 that the interim stay order was granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner. However, ultimately the writ petition was dismissed on 12.12.1989 observing as under :
"The Additional District Magistrate will now consider all pending applications, or in case it is permissible, he can invite fresh applications also for allotment or premises but no observations in this behalf can be made. As the matter is old, it is expected that the authority concerned will conclude allotment proceedings within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it by the petitioner. It may, however, be noted that this time proceedings shall not be taken by the officer who earlier took the proceedings. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. However, there will be no order as to costs."
4. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for modification of the Judgment and order dated 12.12.1989. The application filed by the petitioner was disposed by this Court-vide order dated 9.2.90 which reads as under:
"This is an application for expunging the words consider all the pending applications or in case it is permissible, he can invite fresh applications also for allotment of the premises. It has not been provided that fresh applications are to be invited obviously, in case it is not permissible as the case may be deemed to be pending, then the officer concerned will not invite application. With these observations the application is disposed of."
5. After the aforesaid order was passed by this Court, it is stated that the petitioner submitted his affidavit dated October, 1994 showing the urgency of his need and giving details of huge investment made by him and further stating that petitioner was already in occupation of the building in question. However, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the premises in question to respondent No. 3 vide order dated 27.1.1995. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order challenged the validity of the order dated 27.1.1995 and filed a revision under Section 18 of the Act before the respondent No. 1. The revision filed by the petitioner was, however, dismissed by the respondent No. 1 by his judgment and order dated 14.2.1995 as not maintainable. The validity of the said order has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition.
6. Learned Advocate General vehemently urged that the judgment and order passed by respondent No. 1 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. He submitted that the revision filed by the petitioner was legally maintainable. The respondent No. 1 has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in dismissing the said revision. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents supported the validity of the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1.
7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Section 18 of the Act provides as under:
"18. Appeal against order of allotment or release.--(1) No appeal shall lie from any order under Section 16 or Section 19, whether made before or after the commencement of this section, but any person aggrieved by a final order under any of the said sections may, within fifteen days from the date of such order, prefer a revision to the District Judge on any one or more of the following grounds, namely :
(a) that the District Magistrate has exercised a Jurisdiction not vested in him by law;
(b) that the District Magistrate has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law;
(c) that the District Magistrate acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
(2) The revising authority may confirm or rescind the final order made under sub-section (1) or may remand the case to the District Magistrate for rehearing, and, pending the revision, may stay the operation of such order on such terms, if any, as it thinks fit.
Explanation.--The power to rescind the final order under this subsection 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.
(3) Where the order under Section 16 or Section 19 is rescinded, the District Magistrate shall, on an application being made to him on that behalf, place the parties back in the position which they would have occupied but for such order or such part thereof as has been rescinded and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary."
8. It is not disputed by the contesting respondents that the order dated 27.1.1995 was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in exercise of powers under Section 16 of the Act. The order was thus apparently revisable under Section 18 of the Act. The submission made by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the order of allotment could not be revised at the instance of prospective allottee is not acceptable to me, in view of clear and in ambiguous language used in the aforesaid section to the effect that any person aggrieved by the final order under Section 16 or 19 may within fifteen days from the date of such orders could prefer revision to the District Judge. It is not disputed that the building in question was once allotted to the petitioner. Possession over the same was also delivered to him and he invested substantial amount in establishing business in the said building. Since he was likely to be evicted from the building in question, he was apparently a person aggrieved from the order passed under Section 16 of the Act, in favour of respondent No. 3, therefore, he was entitled to file a revision.
9. In view of the decisions of this Court in M/s. Bombay T. V. Centre v. Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1980 ARC 186 ; Bimal Kumar Mahartshi v. District Magistrate, Bijnore and others, 1982 ARC 53 and M/s. Vitticks Pharma v. Jai Devi Shukla, 1982 ARC 450, revision is maintainable even at the instance of a prospective allottee. In the present case the status of the petitioner was better than a prospective allottee as he himself was an allottee and by means of the impugned order, the allotment order passed in his favour was virtually set at naught by allotment of the building in favour of respondent No. 3. The learned District Judge has simply referred to certain decisions in his order. Although the said decisions were not on the point of maintainability of the revision, but he abruptly arrived at the conclusion that the revision filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. No reason has been recorded support of the said conclusion by the respondent No. 1. The order passed by the respondent No. 1 is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 14.2.1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 is quashed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the revision filed by the petitioner afresh on merits in the light of the observations made above after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It is further directed that the revision shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent No. 1. No order as to costs.