Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction for quashing of two impugned orders both dated 21.11.1988 appended as Annexures 7 and 8 to the writ petition passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner applied for allotment of the accommodation in dispute which had fallen vacant for the reason that the erstwhile tenant Sri Rakesh Kumar had vacated the same. The Rent Control Inspector made spot inspection and submitted his report that the accommodation in dispute was vacant.

4. It appears that a release application was also filed by the landlord on the ground that the accommodation in dispute was required for the living of Pujari of the Shiv Mandir belonging to him. The release application was considered by the District Supply Officer/Delegated Authority who vide his order dated 12.10.1983 rejected the release application filed by the landlord on the ground that the accommodation in dispute was not bona fide required by the landlord for his own use. It was further held by the Delegated Authority that the Pujari does not come within the meaning of word ‘family as defined under Section 3 (g) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The Delegated Authority also gave a finding that the requirement of the Pujari for the temple is doubtful as he has his own house at 270, Multan Nagar, Meerut and the Shiv temple being more than 100 year old and being in ruinous condition does not require any Pujari.

5. It is alleged by the respondent-landlord that the Delegated Authority while rejecting the release application filed by him has neither taken into account the affidavits filed by him nor the allegations made by him.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Delegated Authority dated 12.10.1983 the respondent-landlord filed two revisions, i.e., Revision Nos. 518 of 1983 and 519 of 1983 before the District Judge, Meerut. Revision No. 518 of 1983 was filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 18 of the Act against the allotment of the accommodation in dispute in favour of the petitioner while Revision No. 519 of 1983 was filed by the respondent-landlord against rejection of his release application. Both the revisions were connected and came up for consideration before the VIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut who by his judgment and order dated 17.4.1986 allowed the revisions.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 17.4.1986, the petitioner-prospective allottee filed Writ Petition No. 13887 of 1986 which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the revisional Court.

8. After remand both the revisions came up for consideration before the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut who connected them together and after hearing the rival parties and appraisal of evidence adduced by the parties allowed both the revisions vide impugned judgments and orders both dated 21.11.1988. By allowing Revision No. 519 of 1983 the VIIIth Additional District Judge released the accommodation in dispute in favour of the respondent-landlord and by allowing Revision No. 518 of 1983 the allotment of the accommodation in dispute in favour of the petitioner-prospective allottee was set aside.

9. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-prospective allottee is that he is occupying the accommodation in dispute as such. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge in Revision No. 519 of 1983 releasing the accommodation in dispute in favour of the respondent-landlord by taking a wrong view that the Pujari also comes within the meaning of Section 16 (1)(b) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the impugned order passed on Revision No. 518 of 1983 setting aside/cancelling the allotment order in favour of the petitioner on the ground that since the release application filed by the landlord has been allowed the question of allotment of the accommodation in