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

2. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16.8.1999 passed by the Revisional Court, appended as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.

3. The back ground of the case giving rise to the impugned order is that the disputed accommodation is a part of House No. 91, Church Street, Meerut. It was previously owned by one Sri D. K. Sharma, who had let it out to Sri K. C. Agrawal who vacated the same in December 1978 upon the request made by the then landlord/owner. The Rent Control Inspector conducted a spot enquiry on 5.3.1979 and submitted his report to the effect that the disputed premises was vacant. Accordingly, it was declared vacant by the competent authority vide order dated 6.3.1979.

4. The petitioner appears to have moved an application dated 6.3.1979, i.e., on the same day on which an order was passed by the Delegated Authority declaring vacancy, for allotment of the disputed premises in his favour. The vacancy was subsequently notified through publication by the then District Supply Officer/ Delegated Authority on 22.3.1979 under information to the then landlord Sri D. K. Sharma also. The order of the notification of vacancy was not challenged by any person and had became final.

5. After declaration of vacancy, the landlord/owner Sri D.K. Sharma also informed that the District Supply Officer/Delegated Officer, Meerut that Sri K.C. Agrawal, the then tenant, handed over the vacant portion to him on 28.3.1979. The landlord also moved the Delegated Authority requesting for release of the accommodation in his favour account of “personal need”. The application for release was rejected by the Delegated Authority vide his order dated 17.12.1979. Thereafter, upon consideration of the applications for allotment moved by the petitioner and other prospective allottees, the Delegated Authority/A.D.M. (E) vide his order dated 17.12.1979 allotted the premises in dispute in favour of one Sri Amar Nath Verma. The application of the petitioner wherein he had stated that he was a resident of village Bhattipura situated near Meerut, was rejected on the grounds that his need was neither genuine nor bona fide. Subsequent thereto order of allotment in Form-B was issued in favour of Amar Nath Verma treating the accommodation in dispute to be vacant but it was not occupied by the said allottee.

6. From a perusal of the records it appears that the petitioner without any allotment order entered the accommodation in dispute, illegally and unauthorizedly and filed Revision No. 588 of 1979 challenging the order of allotment dated 17/18.12.1979 in favour of Amar Nath Verma.

7. It appears that the then landlord/owner Sri D. K. Sharma in compelling circumstances execute a registered sale-deed dated 29.1.1992 in favour of Smt. Santosh Rani Sachdeva who has been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition.

8. The Revisional Court before whom only validity and correctness of the allotment order was challenged, allowed the revision by setting aside the order of allotment dated 17.12.1979 remanding the matter back to the Delegated Authority for reconsideration of the question of allotment a fresh.

9. The present landlady Smt. Santosh Rani Sachdeva, respondent No. 2 then moved an application in April 1994 before the Delegated Authority under Section 16 (1) (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the accommodation in dispute on the ground that it was legally vacant and that it was only the order of allotment dated 17.12.1979 which was set aside in revision No. 588 of 1979 filed by the petitioner and ‘Not’ the order declaring and notifying the vacancy which was left intact and undisturbed.

10. On the application for release of the present land lady, a report was called for from the Rent Control Inspector who after complying with the provisions Rule 8 (2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent