Lajpat Rai Bhatia v. Additional District Judge

1. The only question that arises for consideration in this petition is if the allottee of premises is entitled to claim impleadment in appeal arising out of release proceeding under S. 16 of the Act.

2. In 1973 two applications were filed one by petitioner for allotment and other by opposite party for release. Both were decided on same day. Application for release was rejected. Premises were allotted in favour of petitioner who it is claimed entered into possession as well. Against both orders opposite party filed two appeals. They were dismissed. The order was however set aside by this court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8083 of 1974 and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeals afresh.

3. On 18th Sept. 1981 petitioner filed an application that fie being allottee in possession was vitally interested in appeal arising out of release proceedings therefore he may be impleaded as a party. It was rejected by appellate authority for three reasons, one there was no rule permitting impleadment of tenant in release proceedings, he was not party before Rent Control and Eviction Officer and impleadment may result in anomalous situation as the proceedings are concerned with requirement of landlord which petitioner intended to contest. It was also observed that petitioner had no vested right in these proceedings. And the legal position did not alter despite deletion of sub-r. (4) of R. 13 of Rules under Act XIII of 1972.

4. Hearing a person whose rights are affected even in administrative proceedings has become a part of our jurisprudence. Rule of locus standi has been broadened to include even those who not only are but may be affected. Every person has a vested right to be heard before an order affecting him is passed unless such right is taken away by the Legislature. What has to be seen therefore is if S. 16 or rules framed thereunder deprive an allottee from claiming a right to be impleaded in release proceedings. The Section does not say so. Sub-r. (4) of R. 13 has been deleted. Therefore whatever bar existed has been removed. In absence of any statutory provision there appears no rationale or principle on which an allottee or a tenant in possession can be deprived of filing objection or claiming right to adduce evidence.

5. Reliance is placed on Ashok Kumar v. District Judge (1979 UP RCC 499) : (1979 All LJ NOC 127) by learned counsel for opposite party and it is urged that even after deletion of sub-r. (4) a prospective allottee does not get any right of impleadment in release proceedings. This case is of no assistance for two reasons first the Hon'ble Judge having allowed the writ petition of perspective allottee and permitted him to be impleaded as party in revision the discussion on R. 4 was obiter dicta, second even accepting the observation, ‘in spite of deletion of sub-r. (4) of R. 13 of the Rules, the prospective allottee has no right to object to the release of the accommodation’ as ratio decedendi the case is distinguishable. Because a tenant or a person in occupation as a allottee cannot be put on same footing as prospective allottee. Former class of persons by virtue of possession or order in their favour which confers a right on them to remain in occupation so long the order is not set aside have a right to contest the claim of landlord. They can satisfy the District Magistrate that the building was not bona fide required by the landlord. To deny this right specially after deletion of sub-r. (4) would be negativing basic concept of passing an order affecting a party after hearing him. Same may not be said about prospective allottee. So long no order is passed in his favour he does not become entitled to participation in release proceedings.

6. It has been seen that petitioner is not only an allottee but has entered into possession. True it is dependent on release proceedings but he cannot be said to be person not interested. His non-impleadment before Rent Control Officer was also not material. He was till then only a prospective allottee. But once allotment order was made in his favour he has a right to contest the appeal arising out of release proceeding.

7. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by appellate authority is quashed. He is directed to implead the petitioner as party and decide the case in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs.

8. Petition allowed.