ANIL JAISWAL Vs. VANDANA PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the question of delay condonation as well as on restoration application. Cause shown is sufficient. The application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application is allowed and the delay is condoned, the order dated 27.10.2011 dismissing the writ petition in default is recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number and status. Heard learned Counsel for the parties also on merit and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.3.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 40 of 2006, Anil Jaiswal v. Smt. Vandana Puri, the order dated 2.3.2005 and the order dated 18.1.2006 passed by the Additional City Magistrate, Vth/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 95 of 2003, Smt. Vandana Puri v. Anil Jaiswal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed an application under section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which was registered as Case No. 95 of 2003, Smt. Vandana Puri v. Anil Jaiswal before the Additional City Magistrate Vth/Rent Control and Eviction Officer for release of a disputed garage in premises No. 8/213-B, Arya Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar under the tenancy of the petitioner. It was stated that in the beginning one Mr. Singh was tenant in the garage situated on the ground floor of the building who vacated and gave the possession of it to the petitioner; that at present the petitioner and one Amit Gupta have possession over the disputed premises for the last 10 years without any allotment; that the petitioner has landed property at Lal bunglow, Kanpur and at other places. As he has no need of the said garage, therefore, he has sublet the said garage to Amit Gupta who is running a Beer shop therein as such the premises in dispute is fully vacant. It was also stated that the husband of the respondent has a Maruti Van and there being no space with her for parking the said Maruti Van with security, she required the premises in dispute.

(3.) Upon receipt of the application the Additional City Magistrate Vth/Rent Control and Eviction Officer called a report from the Rent Control Inspector, who submitted his report dated 1.2.2003.