U C MISRA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have directed this writ petition against the order of eviction passed against them in proceedings under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. THE petition has arisen in the circumstances hereinafter indicated.

(2.) THE dispute in the petition pertains to premises no. A 2/3 Niralanagar, Lucknow. THE premises was allotted to petitioner no. 1 Dr. U. C. Misra in the year, 1961. According to the petitioners averments ever since the allotment order the premises was occupied not only by petitioner no. 1 but also by his family comprising of himself, his father, mother and brother. At the time when the allotment was made he was not married but he married subsequently and after the marriage his wife also stayed in the said house. After he completed his education he got an appointment at Delhi and subsequently at Agra. In the year 1974 a notice was issued to the Tatsat Misra, real brother of petitioner no. 1 regarding eviction from the premises but the said notice was lateron discharged. Again on 23-4-1977 notice was issued to Dr. U. C. Misra, petitioner no. I, as well as to his cousin Shiva Kant Misra, petitioner no. 2. In this notice it was stated that in violation of the terms of the allotment order petitioner no. 1 had sublet the premises to petitioner no. 2. Both the petitioners filed a joint reply and contested the notice. THE Prescribed Authority, however, rejected the objections of the petitioners and ordered their eviction. This order has been upheld in appeal by the learned District Judge. Aggrieved by the order of eviction the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) MISS Alka Saxena appeared on behalf of Mrs. Laxmi Gautam in whose favour allotment has been made of the premises in dispute. She sought permission to argue on behalf of the allottee. I have heard her also. In view of the legal infirmity in the proceedings mentioned herein above the order of eviction cannot be sustained. Once the order of eviction cannot be sustained the allottee cannot claim delivery of possession.