SUKAMAL CHAND JAIN Vs. ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this peti tion filed under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India, petitioner prays for is suance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11-9-2000 whereby an application under Section 21 (l) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the order dated 14-9-2000 whereby revision filed-by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed. It appears that the proceedings under Section 16 read with Section 12 (a) of the Act were initiated on an application filed by Ashok Kumar, Respondent No. 4 for allotment of the building in question. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to make local inspection and submit his report. The Rent Control Inspector made local inspection and thereafter submitted the report against which objections were filed by the petitioner. After hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, building in question was declared vacant by order dated 26-7-2000 by the Respondent No. 1. Challenging the validity of the said order petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 35598 of 2000. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by the judgment and order dated 11-8-2000. In the meanwhile an application under Section 16 (l) (b) was filed by the Respondent No. 3 for release of the build ing in question in his favour as the building was required by the said respondent for his personal use. The Respondent No. 1, after perusing the material on record, released the building in question in favour of Respon dent No. 3 by the judgment and order dated 11-9-2000. Challenging the validity of the order of release the petitioner filed a revision before the Revisional Authority, the District Judge, Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner by the judgment and order dated 14-9-2000, hence the present petition.

(2.) THIS petition was filed through Mr. Anurag Khanna, Advocate. Since the lawyers are absenting from Courts on ac count of strike on the call given by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner Sri Sukamal Chand Jain appeared in per son. On the other hand, Respondent No. 3 Sri Surendra Kumar Jain also appeared in person.

(3.) LASTLY, the petitioner requested that some reasonable time may be granted to him to vacate the building in question as immediately after dismissal of this petition it would not be possible for him to arrange for an alternative accommodation for his residence. Shri Surendra Kumar Jain, the landlord has got no objection if four months time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the building in question subject to the condition that he furnishes an under taking in writing before the Respondent No. 1 within a period of 15 days from today to the effect that on expiry of the four months, he shall vacate the building in question and shall hand over vacant pos session to him and shall also pay the amount of rent/damages for the period he remains in occupation of the said building at the rate of Rs. 1,200 per month.