JUDGMENT Dilip Gupta, J.
1. Writ Petition No. 17723 of 2008 has been filed for setting aside the order dated 25th June 2002 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and for quashing the Judgment and order dated 29th March 2008 by which Revision No. 5 of 2002 was dismissed.
2. Writ Petition No. 17724 of 2008 has been filed for setting aside the order dated 28th February 2001 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and for quashing the Judgment and order dated 29th March 2008 by which Revision No. 6 of 2001 was dismissed.
3. The records of the writ petition indicate that after the building in dispute was vacated by Naki, respondent No. 3-Mohd. Rashid filed an application for allotment of building on 17th May 1997 under Section 16(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This application was registered on 28th May 1997 at serial No. 31 in the Register maintained in the office of Rent Control and Eviction Officer. On 2nd July 1997 the petitioner Mohd. Riyaz Khan also filed an application for allotment of the building under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act. This application was registered at serial No. 38 on 9th July 1997 in the Register maintained in the office of Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report on 4th September 1997. Thereafter, vacancy was declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 11th November 1998 and 4th December 1998 was fixed for disposal of the allotment applications. The landlord also filed an application for release of the building under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act on 16th December 1998 but this application was rejected by the order dated 29th January 2001. The landlord filed Revision No. 1 of 2001 to assail the order rejecting the release application but the Revision was dismissed on 14th May 2002.
4. In the mean time, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 28th February 2001 had passed an order allotting the said premises in favour of Mohd. Rashid as he was the first applicant.
5. The petitioner filed Revision No. 6 of 2001 against the aforesaid order dated 28th February 2001 allotting the accommodation in favour of Mohd. Rashid-respondent No. 3 on the ground that the order had been passed treating Mohd. Rashid as the first applicant totally ignoring the fact that the petitioner-revisionist was in actual possession of the premises and was wrongly treated as an authorized occupant even though his occupation was with the consent of the landlord.
6. On 1st March 2001 an allotment order was issued in Form ''B' in favour of Mohd. Rashid and subsequently Form ''C' was also issued directing the petitioner to vacate the premises treating him to be an unauthorized occupant. The petitioner filed his objections on 20th June 2002 in reply to the notice issued in Form ''C' requiring him to vacate the premises. His contention was that the order dated 28th February 2001 by which the premises were allotted in favour of Mohd. Rashid, was liable to be set aside as this order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who was residing in the accommodation and if Form ''D' was issued he will be left with no accommodation. The objections filed by the petitioner were rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 25th June 2002 and a further direction was given for issuance of Form ''D'. Subsequently, on 25th June 2002 Form ''D' was also issued.
7. The petitioner then challenged the order dated 25th June 2002 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by filing Revision No. 5 of 2002.
8. Learned Additional District Judge has dismissed both Revision No. 5 of 2002 as well as Revision No. 6 of 2001 by his Judgment and order dated 29th March 2008.
9. The Judgment and order passed in Revision No. 5 of 2002 has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 17723 of 2008, while the Judgment and Order passed in Revision No. 6 of 2001 has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 17724 of 2008.
10. I have heard Sri Ramendra Asthana learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and have examined the materials available on record.
11. The main grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the order dated 28th February 2001 by which the premises were allotted in favour of Mohd. Rashid-respondent No. 3. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Revision No. 6 of 2001 and the order dismissing the said Revision has been impugned in Writ Petition No. 17724 of 2008. The dispute in Writ Petition No. 17723 of 2008 relates to the rejection of the objections filed by the petitioner against the issuance of Form ''C' by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. This is only a consequential order.
12. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 28th February 2001 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for allotment of the premises in favour of Mohd. Rashid-respondent No. 3 is liable to be set aside as it does not mention any presumptive rent as was required to be mentioned under Section 16(9) of the Act and in support of his contention he has placed a reliance upon the decision of this Court in Ram Autar Sharma v. Additional District Judge, Varanasi and Ors. 2007 (2) ARC 760.
13. Section 16 of the Act deals with allotment and release of vacant buildings. Section 16(1)(a) of the Act provides that the District Magistrate may require the landlord to let any building which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant to any person specified in the order. Section 16(9) of the Act provides that the District Magistrate shall, while making an order under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), also require the allottee to pay to the landlord an advance, equivalent to one months presumptive rent, and on his failure to make or offer the payment within a week thereof, rescind the allotment order. The allotment procedure has been provided under Rule 10 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It provides that an application for allotment of building shall be made in Form ''A". The District Magistrate shall maintain a register of applications for allotment of buildings and the applications shall be classified according to the priority categories specified in Rule 11 and shall be registered in order of receipt of applications. Rule 12 provides that an allotment order shall be issued in Form ''B'. Rule 14 provides that an order in Form ''C' shall be served upon the person or persons found in occupation of the building and such person or persons shall be asked to vacate the building and deliver vacant possession to the person named in the order and upon his failure to comply with the order within the time allowed, the District Magistrate shall issue an order to the officer-in-charge of the Police Station in Form ''D' directing him to get the building vacated and to put the allottee or the landlord in possession of the building.
14. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the provisions of Section 16 (9) of the Act had been complied with inasmuch as the presumptive rent was mentioned in Form ''B' issued under Rule 12. As noticed hereinabove, the allotment order is issued in Form ''B'. Thus, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
15. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the application filed for allotment by Mohd. Rashid-respondent No. 3 was not renewed as was required under Rule 10(4) of the Rules. The Revisional Court has noticed that the application for allotment by Mohd. Rashid was registered on 28th May 1997 while the application for allotment filed by the petitioner was registered on 9th July 1997. Vacancy was declared on 11th November 1998 and thereafter the accommodation was allotted in favour of Mohd. Rashid on 28th January 2001. Rule 10(4) of the Rules requires renewal of the allotment application every year but in the present case, it was found that both the petitioner and Mohd. Rashid had not got the allotment applications renewed and no other person had pressed his allotment application. Thus, this contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also urged that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected his application solely on the ground that he was unauthorized occupant and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the Division bench decision of this Court in Samuel Kempstor v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional City Magistrate VI, Kanpur Nagar and Anr. 2007 (2) ARC 888. This contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted because the allotment application by the petitioner has not been rejected on this ground.
17. A perusal of the order indicates that the application for allotment by Mohd. Rashid-respondent No. 3 was registered on 28th May 1997 while the application filed by the petitioner for allotment was registered on 9th July 1997. Rule 10 provides that the application for allotment shall be classified according to the priority categories specified in Rule 11. Rule 11 deals with the priorities in allotment of residential buildings. The emphasis is on the principles "first come first serve". In the allotment order it has been specifically mentioned that the premises was being allotted as the application filed by Mohd. Rashid-respondent No. 3 was prior in point of time then the application filed by the petitioner. This is in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11.
18. Thus, none of the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have any force and Writ Petition No. 17724 of 2008 is liable to be dismissed.
19. Writ petition No. 17723 of 2008 is directed only against the consequential orders issued in Form ''C' and ''D' against the petitioner and once the challenge by the petitioner to the allotment order passed in favour of the Mohd. Rashid-respondent No. 3 fails, this petition is also liable to be dismissed.
20. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, both the writ petitions are without any merit and are accordingly dismissed.
21. In the end learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, prayed that two months time may be given to the petitioner to vacate the premises.
22. The petitioner shall not be ejected from the premises in dispute for a period of two months from today provided the petitioner gives the following undertaking before the Court below within three weeks from today.
1. That the petitioner shall not induct any other person in the premises.
2. That the petitioner shall handover peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord on or before the expiry of two months.
23. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner fails to give the undertaking within the aforesaid period or fails to comply with any of the terms of the undertaking, then in that case, it will be open to the landlord to get the order executed.