RAMESHWAR DAYAL SAGAR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the order dated 20 -11 -1991 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur. The Petitioner who claimed to be the sitting tenant filed a revision under Section 18 against an order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord. By order dated 10 -5 -1989 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has declared vacancy in the disputed premises. This order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 16176 of 1986. The petition was dismissed with the following order:

(2.) THE petitioner then again filed another writ petition being writ petition No. 16239 of 1989. This petition was also dismissed by order dated 11 -1 -1991 only on the ground that since an earlier writ petition against the same order was filed, subsequent petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Rule 7 of Chapter XII of the Rules of the Court. In the mean time the application for the release of the disputed premises by the landlord was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 15 -11 -1991. The order dated 15 -11 -1991 was challenged in Revision Petition No. 621 of 1991 under Section 18 of the Act. The learned District Judge dismissed the revision as not maintainable in view of the decision in the case Ganpat Roy v. The Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad and others : 1985 (II) ALR 423 (SC). This order rejecting the revision has been impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that since the petitioner is in occupation of the premises and has been depositing rent under Section 30 of the Act, he may be given some time to vacate the premises. The learned counsel for the respondent Sri Vijay Bahadur did not seriously oppose to this request of the petitioner. The petitioner is granted three months' time to deliver vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent No. 3 provided he furnishes an undertaking in this regard before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer within 15 days of receipt of a certified copy of this order. This indulgence would be available only in case the petitioner furnishes the undertaking. A certified copy of the order may be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of requisite charges within 48 hours.