VITTIKS PHARMA Vs. JAI DEVI SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The present petition has been filed against the orders dated 13-6-1981 and 19-6-1981 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the District Judge, respectively. The petitioners were aggrieved against an ex-parte order of review under section 16 (5) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act in favour of O. P. No. 1. They applied for review of the earlier order. Their application was rejected on 15-6-1981. Thereupon they filed a revision against the same before the District Judge, Kanpur. The petitioners also prayed for stay of their dispossession from the disputed building. On their dispossession not only the revision would have become infructuous but they would have been put to irreparable loss as it was summer vacation. The stay application came up before Shri L. R. Kohli, the Incharge District Judge, Kanpur on 19-6-1981. He entertained some doubt about his authority. He ordered the matter to be put up before the District Judge for orders on 22nd June, 1981. In the meantime the present petition was filed.

(2.) THE stay application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the District Judge on 22-6-1981, though the revision was kept pending and no final orders were passed on it. That appears to be highly improper. Orders even on stay or inter-locutory matters should not be passed in a slip shod manner. THE merits and consequences must be examined. It is apparent that the orders were passed without any application of mind to the controversy. THE result was that the petitioner was dispossessed even before he could avail of the remedy of revision provided under law. THE judgment was enforced though its correctness was under examination by the revisional court. After dispossession an application was moved by the petitioner.