KANHAIYA LAL Vs. MAHENDRA PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the caveator and perused the record.

(2.) This petition is directed against the orders dated 19.1.2009 and 16.12.2009 by which an application under Section 19 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dismissed by the courts below.

(3.) One Chandra Kishore was the tenant of an almirah in the wall of a building belonging to the respondent landlord which he utilised as a shop. He died issueless in August, 1992, whereupon the petitioner, Kanhaiya Lal claiming to be his adopted son occupied it. The respondent landlord moved an application under Sections 12 and 16 of the Act for declaration of vacancy and release before the rent controller which was registered as Case No. 2 of 1995. After considering the evidence on record the rent controller having found that Kanhaiya Lal was not the adopted son of Chandra Kishore and was in an unauthorised occupation of the disputed premises, declared it vacant vide order dated 20.5.1996. The petitioner thereafter challenged the said order through Writ Petition No. 18918 of 1996 and obtained a stay order. After hearing the parties, the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 19.9.2002 on the ground that in Civil Suit No. 217 of 1993 filed by the petitioner it was held that he was not the adopted son of the original tenant Chandra Kishore and thus the order of vacancy was affirmed. The petitioner alongwith his real brother Sunil and brother of the original tenant, Ram Kumar filed an application for review of the vacancy order which was again rejected vide order dated 6.3.2003 which was subjected to challenge in a revision which was also dismissed oh 5.5.2003. Again Kanhaiya Lal, the petitioner alongwith Sunil and Sumer preferred Writ Petition No. 21491 of 2003 and a learned single Judge after contest dismissed the writ petition on 16.5.2003 with the finding that Kanhaiya Lal the petitioner cannot urge that he is the heir of deceased tenant Chandra Kishore whereafter his collateral Ram Kumar started a fresh innings and made yet another application for review on 22.11.2003 for setting aside the order declaring vacancy but the same was dismissed on 16.1.2004, the resultant revision was also dismissed on 3.2.2007. Thereafter, they also challenged the said orders through Writ Petition No. 20973 of 2007 and this Court dismissed it vide order dated 27.4.2007 by the following order: