VINAY SONI Vs. VINOD CHANDRA MISHRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the occupant of the premises in dispute claiming to be the tenant, for quashing the order dated 7th Jan., 2002 passed by the Vth Additional City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar declaring vacancy in the premises in dispute.

(2.) The dispute relates to a part of the first floor of premises No. 8/76, Arya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar of which respondent nos. 1 to 4 are the owners and landlord. It is alleged that Sri Harbansh Lal Soni father of the petitioner was tenant in the premises in dispute since 1971. In the year 1973 Suraj Prakash Soni, the brother of the petitioner was married to Dr. Swaraj Bala Rawat and she also started living in the premises in dispute along with other family members after her marriage. It is further alleged that Smt. Rama Devi mother of respondent No. 4 filed an application for release of the premises under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was registered as Rent Case No. 102 of 1987. During the pendency of the release application referred to above, Dr. Saroj Bala daughter in law of Sri Harbansh Lal (tenant) was allotted official accommodation in the UHM Hospital Campus Kanpur where she shifted along with her husband Suraj Praksah Soni.

(3.) Smt. Rama Devi set up a false case alleging that Dr. Saroj Bala was the tenant in the premises in dispute and she having been allotted an official accommodation there would be deemed vacancy under law and accordingly on 23rd May, 1988 she applied for declaration of vacancy and also for release under Sec. 16 of the Act before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur. In the meant time Smt. Rama Devi the landlady got the application under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the Act dismissed in default on 7th June, 1988, whereas the intimation of vacancy was given on 23rd May, 1988. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 14th June, 1988 declared vacancy and on 28th June, 1988 passed an order releasing the premises in dispute in favour of the landlady. Harbansh Lal or coming to know of the said order filed revision against the same, which was registered as Revision No. 157 of 1988. In the mean time in another declaratory suit being Original Suit No. 1508 of 1988 Harbansh Lal was declared tenant of the premises in dispute. In the mean time, the Revision No. 157 of 1988 came up for hearing and the Revisional Court vide order dated 20th May, 1996 allowed the revision and after setting aside the orders of vacancy and release, remanded the matter for fresh disposal after giving notice and opportunity to the revisionist tenant. The landlord preferred a writ petition against the order of remand, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 27047 of 1996 the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 31st Oct., 2000 and it was provided that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer while deciding the matter afresh will not be influenced by any observations or findings recorded by the Revisional Court and will proceed to decide the case afresh. The petitioner applied for issue of fresh commission. However, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the impugned order dated 7th Jan., 2002 has again declared vacancy, against which this writ petition has been filed.