DURGA PRASAD Vs. NARAYAN RAM CHANDAANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a review petition filed by the petitioner/applicant seeking a review of the order dated 09.03.2015 by which the writ petition was dismissed by this Court holding that he has absolutely no lien on the property in question and that he is an unauthorized occupant and the building be declared deemed vacant.

(2.) Now a review petition was filed by the petitioner stating that the sole question on which the petition was dismissed by this Court was by holding that the petitioner is the brother of the deceased/tenant, namely, Smt. Lalita Devi and since brother does not come under the definition of family given in Section 3(g) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (from hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972"), the petitioner has absolutely no right over the property. Thus holding him to be an unauthorized occupant on the property. In the review petition, petitioner submits that in the order dated 09.03.2015, there is an error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as the court did not consider Section 3(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as well as other provisions of law, which were crucial to resolve the issue.

(3.) Prima facie this Court found some merit in the contention of the review petition. Consequently, an interim protection was granted to the petitioner by an order of status quo. The petitioner admittedly is still occupying the premises in question. Even though strictly speaking Order 47, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. would not be applicable in a writ petition, but the practise being that at least the principles laid down under Order 47, Rule 1 of C.P.C. should be followed and, therefore, this Court would examine the review petition on strict parameter of Order 47, Rule 1 of C.P.C. most importantly as to whether there was an error apparent on the face of record while dismissing the writ petition earlier.