SMT. SUKHRANI (DEAD) Vs. GANESH PRASAD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE District Magistrate granted permission to the landlord under section 3(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 to file a civil suit for ejectment of Sri Parag Das and Rama Shanker. Pursuant to this order, the landlord filed a civil suit for ejectment, which was registered as original Suit No. 117 of 1966 and was decreed. The tenant's appeal was dismissed and subsequently the decree for eviction was also upheld by the High Court. The landlord eventually got possession of the shop in dispute in execution proceedings. It transpires that the landlord applied for reconstruction of the shop and the plan was sanctioned by the Municipal Board on 7.1.1974 and thereafter, the shop of the landlord was demolished and a new shop was reconstructed in the year 1976. It transpires that Smt. Sukhrani applied for allotment of the shop in December 1981 and fraudulently obtained an allotment order dated 4.3.1982. When the landlord came to know about the said allotment order, he immediately moved an application for review. Pending consideration of the review application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order dated 9.3.1982 staying the operation of the allotment order and directed the Station Officer, Kotwali, Banda not to give possession to the allottee. However, it transpires that Smt. Sukhrani forcefully took possession of the premises in question on 8.3.1982. It also transpires that against the order dated 9.3.1982, Smt. Sukhrani filed a Revision No. 32 of 1982 and against the allotment order dated 4.3.1982, the landlord filed a revision, which was numbered as 30 of 1982. The first Additional District Judge dismissed the Revision No. 32 of 1982 of Smt. Sukhrani and allowed the Revision No. 30 of 1982 of the landlord and set aside the allotment order. Smt. Sukhrani, thereafter, filed an application for setting aside the order of the Additional District Judge dated 21.5.1982 on the ground that the same order passed ex -parte without hearing the allottee. The said application was rejected by the order dated 31.8.1982. Smt. Sukhrani, thereafter, filed a Writ Petition No. 10218 of 1982, which was dismissed by this Court wide judgment dated 19.11.1982 It transpires that Smt. Sukhrani filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was allowed and the judgment of this Court as well as of the Additional District Judge were set aside and the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the revisional Court with the direction that Civil Revision Nos. 30 and 32 of 1982 be decided on merits. The Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 26.9.1983 directed the parties to appear before the District Judge on 24.10.1983, who would then fix a date for hearing in both the revisions. Pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court, it is alleged by Smt. Sukhrani that she appeared before the District Judge on 24.10.1983, but was told by the office of the District Judge that since the case has not been received in the Court, she would be informed subsequently through a notice. According to Smt. Sukhrani, she only came to know that some order was passed on 15.10.1984 and thereafter, she moved a restoration application, which was rejected by an order dated 18.10.1984. Smt. Sukhrani has now filed the present writ petition. It is relevant to state here that Smt. Sukhrani is the mother of the original tenant, Rama Shanker, who was evicted in the decree passed in Original Suit No. 117 of 1976. During the pendency of the writ petition Smt. Sukhrani had died and her heirs were consequently substituted.

(2.) HEARD Sri Murli Dhar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri R.P. Shastri, the learned Counsel for the landlord/opposite party.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that no opportunity of hearing was given and the impugned order was violative of principles of natural justice is devoid of any merit. The order of the District Judge reveals that the petitioner did not appear before the District Judge on 24.10.1983 pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court. It further transpires that the notices were issued by the District Judge by registered post, which was refused by the family members of the petitioner. Subsequently, notices were sent through the process of the Court, which was served by affixation in the presence of two witnesses and therefore, the services by affixation was held to be sufficient by the District Judge.