The court emphasized the importance of affording opportunities to parties as mandated by the law and held that the respondent's accrued right was without basis in law.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. The first appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 owning property in the premises bearing no. 189/1 (New no. 566) of the Haridwar Road, Rishikesh. The said premises came to be allotted on 23.6.1986 in favour of the respondent purportedly in exercise of the power under Section 16(1) of U.P. Urban Building(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter, 'the ACT').

3. Aggrieved by the same, the first appellant preferred a revision under Section 18 of the ACT. One of the grounds was that the first appellant was not given an opportunity contemplated under the proviso to Section 16(1) of the ACT before the order of allotment came to be passed. The said revision was pending for more than a decade.

4. During the pendency of the revision, the ACT came to be amended by Act no. 5 of 1995 declaring that the ACT did not apply to any building "belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public religious institution".

5. The revision was allowed on 21.4.1997.

6. It was held by the revisionary authority that the allotment of the property in issue is unsustainable for two reasons: (i) the ACT itself did not apply to the property in question in view of the declaration under Section 2(bb)[2. Exemptions from operations of the Act - (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following, namely-xxx xxx xxx xxx(bb) any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public religious institution.] of the ACT, and (ii) the mandate of proviso to Section 16(1) was not complied with.

7. The respondent challenged the revisionary order by way of a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court initially which came to be transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand and re-numbered as Writ Petition No. 3467 of 2001.

8. Interestingly, within a period of less than two months after the revisionary order holding the initial order of allotment illegal, the respondent submitted an application on 4.6.1997 for re-allotment of the premises in question. On 13.6.1997, re-allotment order came to be passed in favour of the respondent.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the first appellant filed (i) a review [It is highly doubted whether such a review is tenable in law. However, neither the respondent nor the authority before whom the review application was filed ever bothered about that aspect.] petition on 3.7.1997 and a revision No.89/97. The said review petition was allowed ["Therefore, property bearing old No.189/1, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh and new No.566, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh reallotted to Shri Sheesh Ram Kanswal on 13.6.97 is cancelled and set aside. The file be consigned to record room."] by an order dated 7.7.97 setting aside the re-allotment order.

10. Aggrieved by the order dated 7.7.97, the respondent carried the matter in revision. The said revision was allowed by the order dated 10.1.2002 on the ground that the respondent allottee was not heard by the reviewing authority before passing the order dated 7.7.1997. The revisionary authority, therefore, directed (the Rent Controller & Eviction Officer) to hear both the parties and pass orders afresh.

11. The Revision no. 89 of 1997 filed by the first appellant society was dismissed by another order dated 10.1.2002 on the ground that in view of the order dated 7.7.1997 reviewing the order of re-allotment, there was no need to examine the correctness of the re-allotment order.

12. Aggrieved by the two orders mentioned above, the first appellant society filed Writ Petition no. 106 of 2002. The said writ petition was heard along with writ petition no. 3467 of 2001 (referred to supra) filed by the respondent. By the impugned judgment, Writ Petition no. 106 of 2002 was dismissed and Writ Petition no. 3467 of 2001 was allowed.

Hence these appeals.

13. Section 16 of the ACT authorises the District Magistrate to pass orders requiring a landlord['landlord' in relation to a building, means a person to whom its rent is or if the building were let, would