MOKIMUDDIN Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order dated 25-5-79 passed by the learned Additional District Judge allowing a revision under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and remanding the case to the Prescribed Authority under that Act for disposing of various applications and objections which shall be referred to hereunder.

(2.) These are the relevant facts. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 Pramod Kumar and Surendra Kumar moved an application under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act for the allotment of the permises in dispute, of which the Respondent No. 3 Shrimati Radha Rani is the landlady. The landlady also made an application for release of the accommodation in dispute in her favour. Pursuant to these applications, an enquiry was caused to be made as to whether there was any vacancy. The Rent Control Inspector reported that the permises were vacant, but recently the permises had again been let out without an order of allotment.

(3.) The Petitioner appeared before the Prescribed Authority and filed an objection claiming the benefit of Section 14 of the aforesaid Act on the allegation that he was in occupation of the permises from before the 5th of July 1976 as a tenant with the consent of the landlady. The Prescribed Authority had initially declared a vacancy, but subsequently, upon the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was in occupation of the disputed premises since before 1976 and that, therefore, there was no vacancy. Accordingly by an order dated 23-4-77, the Prescribed Authority rejected the applications for allotment and for release of the premises and by the same order, however, regularised the possession of the Petitioner.