RAJJAN LAL GUPTA Vs. III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by one Rajjan Lal. He applied for allotment of the premises No. 15/221 Civil Lines, Kanpur. The allotment order was passed after due inspection of the aforesaid building. Subsequently the possession was also delivered in pursuance of the aforesaid order. Thereafter respondent no. 3 filed application purporting under section 16(5) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. That application was moved on the ninth day after the possession was delivered to the petitioner. In that application it was contended that premises No. 15/221 was different premises whereas the applicant was evicted from premises No. 15/220. Notice was issued to the allottee and thereafter both the courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the allotment order was passed in respect of premises no. 15/221 whereas the respondent no. 3 was evicted from premises no. 15/220 for which there was no allotment order. They ordered the respondent no. 3 to be put back under possession as he was wrongly evicted under section 16 (4) of the aforesaid Act. The present petition has been filed by the allottee Rajjan Lal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below has relied upon the receipt issued by Wajahat Hussain, Munim of landlord. THE petitioner had made an application for cross-examining the aforesaid Munim but the Prescribed Authority rejected that application. That order shows that several times summons were issued to Wajahat Hussain but he did not appear. After looking to the judgment of the revisional court (Annexure 18) and of Prescribed Authority (Annexure 16) it is clear that the version of Wajahat Hussain was not very material. THE question that was involved was whether the opposite party no. 3 was evicted under a valid allotment order issued under section 16 ? If he was not evicted otherwise than under a valid allotment order, the question of tenancy in favour of Gwal Das or the petitioner was not material. In the present case the finding of fact recorded by both the authorities is that Gwal Das was in occupation of premises No. 15/220 aforesaid as a tenant. His goods were found in the accommodation when possession of the same was delivered to the petitioner and that the petitioner was never allotted premises No. 15/220. Under the circumstances the evidence of Wajahat Hussain or any of the landlords was of no consequence.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon certain documents which he has filed along with the rejoinder affidavit. From those documents it appears that the respondent no. 3 had given out that he had not been doing any business earlier. Those documents were not filed before the authorities concerned. However, even if those documents are accepted at its face, they only go to show that respondent no. 3 was not doing any business in the disputed accommodation. THEy do not prove that he could not be in occupation of the accommodation. THErefore these documents are not relevant for the present controversy.