By the Court.—Following questions have been referred by the Hon’ble Single Judge to the Larger Bench under his judgment and order dated 9.9.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 37767 of 2003 :

“(1) Whether in case a landlord lets a building/accommodation covered under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) to a person without allotment order, and the building/accommodation is declared vacant on account of such letting, the landlord is deprived of seeking release of such building/accommodation under Section 16(1)(b) of the said Act?

(2) Whether the release application filed by such a landlord under Section 16(1)(b) of the said Act is liable to be ignored, and the release order passed on such application is void and cannot be given effect to ?

(3) Whether the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can deprive such a landlord of his right to seek release of the aforesaid building/accommodation under Section 16(1)(b) by issuing declaration declaring the release order in favour of such a landlord as void, and directing the District Magistrate/Delegated Authority not to give effect to such release order ?

2. We have heard Counsel for the parties.

3. Facts giving rise to the present reference, as noticed in the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Single Judge are being restated in short.

4. Petitioner (A) was inducted as an unauthorized occupant into the premises covered by Act No. XIII of 1972 [U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, amended from time to time] (hereinafter referred to as ‘1972 Act’) in question in August, 1989 by the landlord (Ms. M) respondent No. 3. Such unauthorized occupation of the premises resulted in an order being passed by the District Supply Officer/Delegated Authority, Meerut declaring deemed vacancy under Section 12(4) of 1972 Act. It is also noticed that petitioner (A) had also acquired a house in Mohalla Chowk in the same city of Meerut and therefore there was a deemed vacancy in view of Section 12(3) of 1972 Act also.

5. The landlord (Ms. M) made an application for release of the said occupation. The application was allowed under Section 16(1)(b) of 1972 Act by the District Supply Officer/Delegated Authority vide order dated 23.7.2003.

6. Challenging the aforesaid order petitioner (A) filed a revision under Section 18 of the 1972 Act, being Civil Revision No. 51 of 2003. The revision was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Meerut vide order dated 7.8.2003 on the ground that the petitioner (A) has no locus standi to question the release order on any ground whatsoever. This led to the filing of Writ Petition No. 37767 of 2003 by the petitioner (A). The Hon’ble Single Judge in his order has found that the order declaring the premises to be deemed to be vacant under Section 12(4) of 1972 Act was in accordance with law and has affirmed the findings recorded by the Court below in that regard.

7. It was contended before the Hon’ble Single Judge that since the landlord (Ms. M) had inducted the petitioner (A) as an unauthorized tenant in the premises in question, Ms. M, therefore, rendered herself ineligible for making an application for release of the occupation in her favour under Section 16(1)(b) of 1972 Act. It was, therefore, submitted that the order releasing the occupation in favour of landlord (Ms. M) was illegal. In support of the said contention petitioner (A) relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge in the case of Ram Nath Sehgal, which in turn relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge in the case of Jagdish v. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others, 2002 AII CJ 462 wherein it was held as follows :

“3. The emphasis laid by the landlord/contesting respondents is that the petitioner is an ‘unauthorized occupant’ being in possession of the accommodation without allotment order in his favour.

14. In view of the decision in t