RAJENDRA KUMAR NIGAM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute relates to premises No. 1 15/95, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur in which one late Arjun Lal was a tenant. Rajendra Kumar Nigam, the present petitioner who is landlord of the said premises, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which was registered as P.A. case No. 18 of 1996. The said release petition was allowed by the prescribed authority by order dated 11.3.1999. Late Arjun Lal or his legal heirs did not file any appeal under Section 22 of the Act and thus, the order of release dated 11.3.1999 became final.

(2.) The landlord moved an application under Section 23 of the Act for implementation/execution of the order of release. In spite of the best efforts of the prescribed authority, the landlord could not be put in physical possession of the released accommodation oh account of the obstruction/resistance put in by one Braj Behari Misra--(now respondent No. 3). It is maintained that Braj Behari Misra--respondent No. 3 was backed by one Sri Bhoodhar Misra, a member of the Legislative Assembly from Kanpur and, therefore, the police help was also not made available to translate the release order into action.

(3.) BraJ Behari Misra--respondent No. 3 moved an application on 15.5.2000 before the prescribed authority to recall the order dated 11.3.1999. The application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 16.5.2000 with the observation that he was an unauthorised occupant. Thereafter. Braj Behari Misra-respondent No. 3 filed Rent Appeal No. 47 of 2000 under Section 22 of the Act asserting himself to be the tenant of the released accommodation. This appeal has been admitted by learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 23.5.2000 and the operation of the original order of release dated 11.3.1999 has been stayed. It is In these circumstances that the landlord has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the District Judge admitting the appeal and staying the order of release on the ground that an appeal at the instance of an unauthorised occupant against whom any order of release has been passed is not maintainable under Section 22 of the Act.