KAPOOR CHAND JAIN Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner landlord filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the accommodation which was registered as P.A. Case No. 1 of 1993. A compromise was entered into between the petitioner landlord and tenant, pursuant to which the accommodation was released in favour of the landlord vide order dated 10.3.1993 in terms of the compromise. An allotment order dated 1.1.2003 under section 16(1) of the Act was passed in favour of respondent No. 4. When the tenant did not vacate the accommodation in terms of the compromise, the petitioner landlord moved an application dated 10.1.2003 under section 23 of the Act before the Prescribed Authority for enforcement of the release order which was registered as P.A. Misc. case No. 2 of 2003, in which Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 24.1.2003 directed S.H.O., P.S. Kotwali for assuring delivery of possession of the accommodation in dispute to the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 moved an application dated 5.2.2003 before the Prescribed Authority for dismissing the proceedings for enforcement of the release order on the ground that he is in possession of the disputed premises under an allotment order passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura under section 16 of the Act. The petitioner landlord filed his objection to the aforesaid application and also filed a review application for cancellation of the order of vacancy and allotment. The heirs of original tenant also filed a revision under section 18 of the Act for setting aside the orders of vacancy and allotment. The review application filed by the petitioner and revision filed by the tenant are said to be still pending. Contention of the Counsel for petitioner is that possession has been got delivered to respondent No. 4 unauthorisedly behind his back whereas Counsel for respondent submits that petitioner himself has filed review application No. 162 of 2002 against the allotment order. He further stated that erstwhile tenant who is claimed by the landlord to be his tenant, has also filed a revision and both review and revision are still pending before Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura.

(2.) In view of the fact that petitioner has already availed remedy by way of review and revision which are still pending, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter at this stage.

(3.) However, since the matter is an old one, looking into facts and circumstances of the case, Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura is directed to decide the matter expeditiously in view of decision in Smt. Manju Devi v. Additional District Judge, VIIIth, Allahabad and others, 2007 68 AllLR 761. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.