JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Dinesh Kumar, who is applicant for allotment of the accommodation in dispute, which is covered by the. provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after referred to as 'the Act', challenges the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Muzaffarnagar, dated 15th December, 2004 and 19th October, 2005, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-'13' and '15', respectively to the writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that Smt. Suman Goel, wife of Sudhir Kumar was the landlord, who entered into a registered agreement with regard to sale of the accommodation in dispute with Smt. Punam Goel, wife of Purshottam Kumar. The then tenant Satyapal Tyagi has vacated the accommodation, which is in dispute. The petitioner filed an application for allotment of the accommodation in dispute on the ground that there is a vacancy and he is in need of the aforesaid accommodation, therefore, the same may be allotted to him. On the basis of the aforesaid application for allotment filed by the petitioner, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued notices to all the parties, inviting their objections, if any. Smt Suman Goel filed her objection stating the facts referred to above. She has further asserted that pursuant to the agreement to sale with Smt. Punam Goel, the possession has been delivered to her, who is in possession of the accommodation in dispute. Thus, there is no vacancy, therefore the application filed by the petitioner for allotment of the accommodation in dispute is liable to be rejected. Smt. Punam Goel in her objection stated that there is a registered agreement to sale for the accommodation in dispute with Smt. Suman Goel and that she has been delivered possession pursuant to the aforesaid agreement to sale. She also asserted that there is no vacancy and the application for allotment is liable to be rejected.
3. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 15th December, 2004, found that in fact there is a vacancy with regard to the accommodation in dispute and directed the vacancy to be notified. After the order dated 15th December, 2004, Smt. Punam Goel filed an application that if there is vacancy, the accommodation in dispute may be released in her favour. The petitioner filed a review application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as contemplated under Section 16(5) of 'the Act' seeking review of the order dated 15th December, 2004. During the pendency of the review application, Smt. Punam Goel filed an affidavit to the effect that she has become the owner of the accommodation in dispute by virtue of the registered sale deed duly executed by Smt. Suman Goel. Smt. Punam Goel also filed an application for release of the accommodation in her favour as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found by his order dated 15th December, 2004, that there is a vacancy in the accommodation in dispute. This statement of Smt. Punam Goel has been denied by the petitioner, who had filed a review application and it is asserted by the petitioner that in fact Smt. Suman Goel and Smt. Punam Goel belongs the same family and are in hand and gloves, in order to defeat the purpose of the petitioner's application. The petitioner further asserted that pursuant to the declaration of vacancy, the same ought to have been allotted in favour of the petitioner.
4. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after hearing learned Counsel for the parties found that the order declaring the vacancy has not been challenged by any party, therefore that order has become final. After the order declaring vacancy has become final, Smt. Punam Goel, who is now admittedly owner and landlord of the accommodation in dispute has filed the release application with the prayer that the same may be released in her favour for her personal need. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has also recorded finding that in the matter of release of the accommodation in dispute, since the law is settled that prospective allottee cannot object the consideration of release application. Thus, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that there is no ground for review of the order dated 15th December, 2004 and since the factum of vacancy has not been denied by any party, therefore he has to proceed with the case as if there is a vacancy in the accommodation in dispute. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer further took a view that in view of the fact that the release application has been filed by the landlord, the application for allotment shall not be considered, unless the release application is rejected. This finding of Rent Control and Eviction Officer though challenged by the petitioner by means of this writ petition, but the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is supported by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Talib Hasan and Anr. v. Ist Additional District Judge, Nainltal and Ors. 1986 (1) ARC 1. On the question of merits of the release application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the landlord Smt. Punam Goel has made out a case for release of the accommodation in dispute, therefore directed for release of the same in her favour.
5. Since the question of vacancy has not been challenged by the petitioner, therefore on his application for allotment the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that after the declaration of the vacancy if there is a release application filed by the landlord, it shall be decided first and it is only the release application filed by the landlord is rejected, it will be open for allotment. On the question of release application filed by the learned Counsel for the landlord, learned Counsel for the petitioner tries to assail the findings recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, but in view of the Full Bench decision in the case of Talib Hasan (supra), the application for allotment, namely the petitioner has no say in the matter and it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the order of release, unless it is demonstrated that the release order is passed either mala fide or it is totally without Jurisdiction. None of these two arguments were pressed into service by learned Counsel for the petitioner and as would be clear from the findings recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Smt. Punam Goel is not the landlord. On the other hand in view of the categorical finding that Smt. Punam Goel has become the landlord by virtue of the registered sale deed executed by landlord Smt. Suman Goel. To me it appears that the view taken by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in rejecting the application for allotment and the application for review does not suffer from any error, much less error apparent on the face of record, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs.