ASHOK KUMAR THARD Vs. HIRDESH KHANDELWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The premises in dispute is house No. 47/7-A. Maniram Bagia, Kanpur Nagar, which is residential. It was declared vacant by the R.C. & E.O. by order, dated 31.1.2001. Annexure-18 to the petition. Thereafter an application for release was moved by the respondents, who are landlords. The premises has been released in their favour by order dated 23.4.2001 by R.C. & E.O., Annexure-19 to the petition. Against that order of release, the petitioners preferred a revision under Section 18 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), being Revision No. 24 of 2001. The said revision has been dismissed on 15.5.2001 by judgment, Annexure-21 to the petition. Therefore, present petition has been filed invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned senior advocate for the petitioners and Sri A. N. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) It has been argued by Sri Rajesh Tandon, senior advocate for the petitioners, that the learned Incharge District Judge has dismissed the revision only on the ground that the petitioners are illegal occupants and they have no right to challenge the order of release. In support of the judgment, the learned Incharge District Judge has also referred to several decisions. It has been argued that he has misinterpreted the decisions and these cases have no application. That it is true that an illegal occupant cannot challenge the release order. However, it is contended that admittedly, the petitioners are in possession of the premises in dispute and the vacancy has been declared on the basis that they are illegal occupants ; that, therefore, they have right to challenge the release order on the ground that there is no vacancy ; that in a revision under Section 18 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, the question of vacancy can also be challenged.