Judgment

VENKATACHALA, J.:- Special leave sought for in this petition is granted and we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal.

2. For a residential building fallen vacant under sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 12 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 --"The Act", if under sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act, an application is received from the landlord.

3. Of that vacant building for its release in his favour and another application is received from the former tenant of that vacant building for its re-allotment in his favour, which of those two applications require priority in the matter of their disposal by the District Magistrate concerned is the question arising for our consideration in this appeal.

4. As it would be advantageous to refer to the facts which have given rise to the said question, brief mention of those facts could be made before its consideration.

5. Shri Swaroop Narain Srivastava, the appellant in this appeal is the landlord of House No. 395/31, Raj Bhawan, Kashmiri Mohalla, Lucknow "the disputed house". By an allotment order made under the Act, that disputed house had been allotted in favour of one Sita Ram Shakya and he became its tenant.

6. Since Sita Ram Shakya, the tenant of the disputed house died on 18-5-1973. Respondent No. 2, the wife of the deceased, respondents 3 and 4, the sons of the deceased and Dr. R.R.P. Singh another son of the deceased, became the joint tenants of the disputed house as the heirs of the deceased living with him. However, when one of the said tenants of the disputed house Dr. R.R.P. Singh, by an allotment order made under the Act in his favour on 30-3-1975, got allotted another house in the same locality, a question arose whether the disputed house had fallen vacant by operation of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 12 of the Act. That question ultimately came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court on a reference made to it in a writ petition before that High Court. It was held by its order dated 12-3-1981 that the disputed house had fallen vacant under sub-sections (3) & (4) of Section 12 of the Act, when one of the joint tenants of the disputed house was allotted a separate residential house in the same locality under the provisions of the Act. Subsequently, the writ petition which had been filed in the High Court disputing the decision of the Revisional Authority that the disputed house had fallen vacant was dismissed by an order made by the High Court on 23-4-1981. As a result of the dismissal of the said writ petition, an application which had been made by the appellant under Section 16(l)(b) of the Act for release of the disputed house in his favour and an application which had been made under Section 16(l)(a) of the Act by respondents 2 to 4 for re-allotment of the disputed house in their favour came up for consideration before the Additional District Magistrate (City) Lucknow in case No. 62/193 of 1982. That Additional District Magistrate considered the said application made by the appellant for release of the disputed house in preference to the other application made by the respondents 2 to 4 for re-allotment of the disputed house in their favour and granted the application made by the appellant for release of the disputed house in his favour, as in his view, when there was an application for release of the vacant building made by the landlord and when there was an application made by the former tenants for re-allotment of the vacant building, the consideration of the application of the landlord had to be done on a preferential basis. On such consideration of the application for release of the disputed house made by the appellant, the Additional District Magistrate found on the basis of evidence placed before him that the appellant-landlord required the disputed house for his bona fide use and occupation. Consequently, he made a release order in respect of th