S C MUKERJI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to vacate the House No. 6/4-A, Stanley Road, Allahabad, presently occupied by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation Allahabad and to hand over vacant possession of the same to the petitioner, in pursuance of the order dated 4-10-1989 (Annexure 1 to the petition) passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) IN short the case of the petitioner is that he is landlord of the house in question which is occupied by the office of Settlement Officer, Consolidation as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 600/- per month which is being paid to the petitioner, (vide paras 3 & 4 of the petition). Presently petitioner is residing at 48, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, a leased accommodation of Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd., which is sought to be vacated after retirement -on 31-3-1992. INstead of invoking relevant provisions of 'The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972' (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (For short, the Act), the petitioner entered into correspondence with the Government of Uttar Pradesh and ultimately Sri A. B. Srivastava, Secretary Revenue (Anubhag-8), Government of U. P., issued D. O. letter dated 4-10-1989 to Sri S. Das, Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh for directing the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to vacate the house in question. INspite of that, house in question has not been vacated, hence this writ petition.

(3.) THERE is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the Full Bench decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, certainly this Court has got powers to issue Mandamus for enforcement of directions issued by superior officer to the subordinate officer in appropriate cases to enforce legal duty imposed by the statute, common law, rules or orders having the force of law. But the fact remains that it is for the petitioner to satisfy that it is a fit case for exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.