B.K Singh, J.:— Smt. Sarwari Begum, the petitioner in both the writ petitions, has challenged the order dated 17.12.1987 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur by which he allowed Civil Revision No. 201 of 1986 and set aside the allotment order dated 8.5.1986 passed in favour of the petitioner and further directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Gorakhpur to immediately evict the petitioner from the accommodation in suit and hand over the vacant possession of the accommodation to Sri Kastur Chandra respondent No. 3, the landlord of the accommodation. Further prayer for quashing of the order dated 13.1.1988 was made, by which the petitioner's review was rejected and the order dated 22.4.1989 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by which he directed the petitioner to vacate the premises.
2. Certain relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition may be stated.
3. That the petitioner moved an application dated 4.7.1985 for allotment of House No. 153, Miyan Bazar, Gorakhpur on the ground that it is lying vacant.
4. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Gorakhpur directed the Inspector to inspect the premises and submit report. The Rent Control Inspector inspected the accommodation and submitted a report that he found the accommodation locked for seven or eight years. On 3.8.1985, the landlord opposite party No. 3 moved an application under Section 16(1)(b) of Act No. XIII of 1972 for release of the accommodation on the ground that he is in bonafide need of it and it should be released in his favour. Instead of determining the controversy, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer again directed the Rent Control Inspector to inspect the accommodation. Again inspection was made on 9.8.1985 and the Inspector submitted a second inspection report dated 9.8.1985 stating that he found the petitioner in possession. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on consideration of the above reports, declared vacancy by order dated 2.12.1985 Thereafter the Rent Control and Eviction Officer considered the release application of respondent No. 3. He by order dated 8.5.1986 rejected the application for release on the ground that the bonafide need of owner landlord was not established. By order of the same date, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the disputed premises in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 landlord of the accommodation filed Civil Revision No. 201 of 1986 challenging the order by which the release application was rejected and also another Revision No. 202 challenging the allotment order. Both the revisions came up before the First Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur. The First Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur by order dated 17.12.1987 allowed the said revisions. Consequent to the order dated 17.12.1987, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has proceeded and issued notice to the petitioner to vacate the premises. A review petition was also preferred by the petitioner in the Court of First Additional District Judge. The First Additional District Judge rejected the review petition by order dated 13.1.1988 The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 22.4.1989 has directed the petitioner to deliver possession to the owner landlord. It is against these judgment and orders that the instant writ petitions have been preferred.
5. I have heard Sri A.K Misra on behalf of the petitioner and Sri S.D.N Singh, the learned counsel of the respondent No. 3.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that the status of the petitioner is that of a prospective allottee. He has submitted that as per a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Talib Hasan v. First Additional District Judge, Nainital . 1986 12 ALR 113., this Court has held that the prospective allottee has no right to even file objection against its release application as a result of deletion of Rule 13(4) of the Rules framed under Act No. XIII of 1972. The court has also held that a prospective allottee cannot even claim the right of audi alteram partem. According to him, a prospective allottee has no locus standi to challenge even the order that is passed allowing the release application. According to him, in the face of this legal position, the present writ petitions preferred by the prospective allottee are legally misconceived and not maintainable and they are liable to be dismissed as such.
7. The learned counsel of the petitioner in reply to the aforesaid legal principle set out in the above Full Bench decision has fairly conceded that he has nothing to say against the legal proposition laid down in the Full Bench decision (supra). He has, however, submitted that the circumstances, which should now be taken into consideration, are not in favour of the owner landlord. He has submitted that he is possessed of other accommodation in the city of Gorakhpur and as such the claim of needing the accommodation in dispute in a bona fide manner is not out of question and the finding recorded by the learned First Additional District Judge in this regard should be set aside and the case be remanded to the lower court for reconsideration.
8. I have considered the above submissions of the learned counsel of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel of the respondent.
9. I am of the view that when the Full Bench decision of Talib Hasan's case (supra) has in very clear terms laid down the law that a prospective allottee has no locus standi to challenge the release application, then the prospective allottee can also have no right to challenge the release order. The sole question that now has to be seen in the writ petitions is confined to the above point on which the preliminary objection has been raised. As regards the changed circumstance urged on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel is concerned, that, to my mind, does not appear to be sustainable because in case it is considered the same would amount to holding that the petitioner has a locus standi to challenge the order of release. As a Single Judge, I find that the decision of the Full Bench (supra) has to be followed. I am also in respectful agreement with the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Talib Hasan's case (supra). The result is that both the petitions are liable to fail on the above ground alone i.e the petitioner as prospective allottee has no right to challenge the order passed by the First Additional District Judge allowing the release application.
10. In view of what has been stated above, I do not find that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked in this case. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed and the interim order, if any, stands discharged. It is directed that the petitioner shall hand over vacant possession by 31st December, 1995.
11. Petitions Dismissed.