KAILASH Vs. VIIITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In this petition, the parties have filed their pleadings. The case is ripe for hearing and it is not necessary to prolong its disposal. It can be disposed of at this stage without formally admitting it. Learned counsel for the parties have also requested for its disposal at the earliest, Therefore, I proceed to decide this case on merits at the stage of admission.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he is a tenant in premises No. 83-A/88, Juhi, Kanpur on the first floor. THE premises consists of one room and Docchatti. It is stated that one Smt. Shanti Devi had vacated the said accommodation and thereafter respondent No. 4, who is owner of the premises, let out the premises to the petitioner with effect from 10-5-76. It is stated that on 1-11-76, respondent No. 3 had moved an application before respondent No. 2 under Section 16 (1) of the Rent Act for allotment of the aforesaid accommodation in his favours On 25-12-76, the Rent Control Inspector is said to have made an inspection to ascertain as to whether any vacancy was there A report was submitted by the Rent Control Inspector that the accommodation was occupied by one Shanti Devi who had vacated the said accommodation about 8 months ago. THE Rent Control Inspector did not certify the occupation of the accommodation by the petitioner. THE vacancy was, therefore, declared, by the authorities, Respondent No 4 is said to have filed her objection about the declaration of vacancy. THE report of the Rent Control Inspector was challenged in the said objection. Respondent No; 4 had stated that the petitioner: was residing in the premises as her tenant. THE objections were rejected by respondent No. 2 by his order dated 27-7-78 Respondent No. 4 moved an application on 16-8-78 under Section 16 (1) of the Rent Act for release of the accommodation in dispute. THE petitioner also filed an application .under section 16 (1) (b) as well under section 14 on 8-12-78. Respondent No. 2 is said to have rejected the release application by his order dated 25-6-79, THE premises were let out to one Daya Ram on 3-10-79. Respondent No. 3 being aggrieved againt the allotment of the accommodation in favour of Daya Ram preferred a revision before the District Judge, Kanpur under section 18 of Act No. 13 of 1972. THE said revision was allowed and the allotment in favour of Daya Ram was set aside and the case was remanded vide order dated 5-4-82. After rehearing the case the allotment was made in favour of respondent No. 3 on 14-3-63. THE petitioner, thereafter., moved an application under section 16 (5) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 for setting aside the allotment order in favour of respondent No. 3. This application was accompanied by an affidavit of respondent No. 4 and one Nand Ram and rent receipts purported to have been issued by respondent No. 4. THE application was heard and rejected on 14-8-84. THE land lady seems to have supported the petitioner and one Nand Ram is said to have contradicted the report of the Rent Control Inspector A revision was preferred by the petitioner against the said order before the District Judge, Kanpur. He allowed the revision and set aside the order and directed to reconsider the application, by his order dated 10-7-85. On 5-1-90 the petitioner's application was allowed under section 16 (5) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. THE order of declaration of vacancy dated 23-12-76 was set aside. Respondent No. 3 is said to have preferred a revision against the order dated 5-1-90 before the District Judge, Kanpur. THE said revision has been allowed on 19-2-91. THE order of the revisional court dated 19-2-91 is being impugned in the writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner has also filled a rejoinder-affidavit in which he has reiterated the pleas raised by him in the writ petition. Contents of the counter are refuted- THE petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit also and produced a copy of the order whereby the allotment in favour of Daya Ram was cancelled in Revision No. 285 of 1979, on 5-4-82. THE revision petition seems to have been filed by respondent No. 3.