KRISHAN CHANDRA Vs. VIIITH A D J KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Petitioner is allottee tenant of shop No. 24/3 Mall Road, Kanpur. The rent of the shop is Rs. 56 per month. Shop in dispute was declared vacant by the R. C. and E. O. on 10-9-1979. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 Sri Krishna (since deceased and survived by his widow Smt. Krishna Devi) filed release application under Section 16 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13/1972. Respondent No. 3 was one of the landlords of the shop in dispute. The said release application was rejected against which respondent No. 3 filed Rent Revision No. 85/1981. The said revision was dismissed on the ground that other co-owners had not been impleaded in the release application. Thereafter, second release application was filed by respondent No. 3 before R. C. and E. O. impleading other co-owners also. Other co-owners did not object to the release of the shop in dispute in favour of respondent No. 3. The second release application was also dismissed by R. C. and E. O. on 1-12-1982. Through the said order need of respondent No. 3 was not found to be bona fide and it was also observed that petitioner was carrying on business in the shop in dispute. The prescribed authority further held that some of the co-owners were not served and one co-owner i. e. Navin Kumar opposed the release application. On the next date i. e. 2-12-1982 shop in dispute was allotted to the petitioner. Against the order rejecting the release application dated 12-12-1982 revision was filed by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and Shri Chaman Lal being Rent Revision No. 377 of 1982. The said revision was allowed on 1-10-1983 and the matter was remanded to R. C. and E. O. After remand R. C. and E. O. through order 8-3-1984 again rejected the release application of respondent No. 3 and on the very next date i. e. 9-3-1984 again allotted the shop in dispute to the petitioner. Against the said order respondent Nos. 3 and 6 others i. e. the other landlords respondents of this writ petition filed Rent Revision No. 94/1984. Vth A. D. J. Kanpur through judgment and order dated 22-8-1986 allowed the revision set aside the order of R. C. and E. O. dated 8-3-1984 and 9-3-1984 and remanded the case to the R. C. and E. O. for fresh finding on the bona fide need of the landlord Sri Krishna. In the said revision Raj Kumar was also revisionist. The Revisional Court held that all the landlords must be treated to be parities and represented. After remand by Revisional Court R. C. & E. O. through order dated 14-5-1987 released the building in favour of respondent No. 3. The said order was passed by R. C. & E. O. /additional City Magistrate Vth Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 125 of 1982, Against order dated 14-5- 1987 petitioner filed Rent Revision No. 86/87 which has been dismissed by VIIth A. D. J. Kanpur on 27-11-1987 hence this writ petition.

(2.) TENANT has got no right to compel the landlords to quarrel among them selves so that tenant's possession may be protected or building may be allotted to the tenant. Even one of the landlords is entitled to file release application. No other landlord objected to the release in favour of respondent No. 3. In release proceedings under Section 16 of the Act prospective allotted has got no right to be heard and he cannot oppose the release application of the landlord (vide Talib Hasan v. A. D. J. , 1986 (12) ALR 113 (FB ).