SHOBHA RANI Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 8.5.1981 of the learned Additional District Judge, Allahabad passed under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) VISHWANATH Tandon, respondent No. 3 was the landlord of the premises No. 490, Malviya Nagar, Allahabad. One Hira Lal was tenant of that house. Hira Lal constructed his own house and thus vacated the premises in dispute. The petitioner who is the married daughter of Hira Lal claims that she has been living in the said premises after Hira Lal vacated it with consent of landlord. It appears on vacation of premises by Hira Lal Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad declared vacancy in respect of house in dispute. Petitioner filed objection that since she has been living in the premises with consent of landlord her possession in the premises in dispute be regularised under Section 14 of the Act. In the alternative she pleaded for allotment of the premises in dispute in our favour. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the objection of petitioner for regularisation of her possession but passed an order allotting the premises in dispute to her. It further appears that after the allotment order was issued in favour of the petitioner, the erstwhile landlord Vishwanath Tandon by registered sale-deed transferred the said house to Smt. Munni Devi respondent No. 4, the present landlord. Smt. Munni Devi alongwith erstwhile landlord Vishwanath Tandon moved an application under sub-section (5) of Section 16 of the Act for setting aside the order dated 4.10.1979 allotting the premises to the petitioner. Smt. Munni Devi also moved an application for release of premises in her favour. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of Vishwanath Tandon an as well as Smt Munni Devi by his order dated 4.10.1979. Aggrieved respondent landlord Smt. Munni Devi and Vishwanath Tandon, erstwhile landlord preferred revision to the learned District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge found that the allotment order had not been passed after giving notice to the landlord and as such allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 4.10.1979 allotting the premises in dispute to the petitioner and remanded the matter to The Rent Control and Eviction Officer for deciding the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the landlord. The present petition is directed against the aforesaid order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent took preliminary objection that since the impugned order has already been given effect to and has exhausted itself, as such the writ petition has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of release passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is a consequential to the order of remand and as such the writ petition is alive. Since I have heard the case on merits, I decline to decide the above question. I proceed to decide the case on merits.