Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Razdan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kabir Ahmad Khan, assisted by Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3.

Opposite party No. 4 is the landlord who has neither disputed the petitioner’s tenancy nor participated in the proceedings from the very inception and for this reason, notice to opposite party No. 4 was dispensed with.

2. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the disputed residential accommodation situated on the second floor of the building known as house No. 332/127, Chowk Road, Opp. Hina Market, Lucknow which comprises of three rooms, kitchen, latrine and bathroom and one mumty elevation on the terrace inclusively.

3. The record reveals that an application in the prescribed form-A was filed by opposite party No. 3 before the Prescribed Authority i.e. Rent Control & Eviction Officer (hereinafter referred to as R.C. & E.O.) on 25.5.2015 under Section 16(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as the U.P.R.C. Act). The opposite party No. 3 in the release application so filed indicated the accommodation in question to be a deemed vacancy and without disclosure of any standard/market rent as required in the prescribed format under item-15, the prayer for allotment of the same at a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- was made before the R.C. & E.O. The proceedings on the said application appear to have commenced on 26.5.2015 when the Tehsildar (Judicial) was directed to inspect the premises, who after due notice to the petitioner (tenant) submitted a report on 30.7.2015. The inspection report clearly mentioned the building in question to be occupied by the petitioner and it further mentioned that the petitioner had initially entered into possession of the disputed accommodation as tenant on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/- in the year 2002, but at the time of inspection, the same was let out to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 5000/- for which there existed a lease deed executed on 23.2.2012.

4. The petitioner on attaining the knowledge of release proceeding filed his preliminary objections before the R.C. & E.O. on 28.10.2015 wherein he took a stand that the building in question was outside the purview of U.P.R.C. Act for the reason that the rate of monthly rent was Rs. 5000/-, therefore, by virute of Section 2 (g) of the Act, the accommodation was exempted.

5. It appears that R.C. & E.O. proceeded on the basis of release application filed by opposite party No. 3 (prospective allottee) and having regard to the documentary evidence of house tax assessment of the year 1976 submitted by him, an order was passed on 6.1.2016 whereby the residential accommodation was treated to be a deemed vacancy under Section 12(1)(b) of U.P.R.C. Act. It is to be noted that the R.C. & E.O. did not make any determination of monthly rent in the order so passed.

6. Since the accommodation was proposed to be allotted in favour of opposite party No. 3 irrespective of any preference envisaged under Rule 11, as such, the petitioner filed detailed objections before the R.C. & E.O. on 1.2.2016 wherein the stand put forth by the petitioner is two-fold. Firstly, that the rent paid to the landlord as on the date of submitting the release application was Rs. 5000/- per month; secondly the accommodation which was a subject-matter of allotment was constructed after the year 1985. It is on these two grounds that the petitioner objected that the disputed accommodation was exempted from the purview of the Act.

7. Both the parties, namely, petitioner and the opposite party No. 3, appear to have participated in the proceedings under Section 16(1)(a) in the backdrop of the facts mentioned above. The case of opposite party No. 3 put forth before the R.C. & E.O. was to the effect that since the disputed premises by virtue of its house tax assessment in the year 1976 by the Municipal Board was covered within the