OM PRAKASH BAJPAI Vs. VTH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. This is a writ petition against the order dated 11-2-1999 and 20-2-1999 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) declaring vacancy and allotting it in favour of the respondent No. 3 and the order of the 5th Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 4-9-2000 dismissing the revision of the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard Pankaj Bhatia Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kushal Kant for the respondent No. 3. The petitioner submits: (i) The petitioner is in possession since 1969 and his possession has been regularised under Section 14 of the Act. (ii) The order of vacancy was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and is illegal. (iii) Even if there is vacancy, the premises ought to have been allotted to him and not to respondent No. 3 as he is in possession since 1969. (iv) There was delay of only few days in filing the revision and as there was sufficient cause it ought to have been condoned.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he came to know about the orders of the Rent Control Officer on 4-4- 1997. Thereafter he inspected the record and filed the revision on 20-4-1999. These facts were in the personal knowledge of the petitioner. In view of this the revisional Court ought to have condoned the delay in filing the revision and heard the case on merit. The order dated 4-9-2000 is illegal and is quashed. The parties may appear before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 17-9-2001. The District Judge, Kanpur Nagar may decide the case himself or he may transfer it to any other competent Court. Thereafter the case itself may be decided on merits in accordance with law if possible within 3 months.