RAMAKANT MISHRA Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the orders dated 23rd August 2004 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the order dated 30th October, 2004 passed by the In-charge District Judge, Varanasi in R.C.R. No. 27 of 2004. The petitioner, Ramakant Mishra, who claims to be occupant of the accommodation in question, is aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 23rd August 2004 whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner, declared the accommodation in the possession of Ramakant Mishra i.e. House No. D-34/190, Mohalla Ganesh Mahal Dashaswamedh, Varanasi to be vacant and directed the vacancy to be notified in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Rent Control And Eviction Officer the petitioner filed Revision No. 27 of 2004 before the District Judge.

(3.) I will first dealt with the order passed by the District Judge in deciding the revision filed by the petitioner which has been dismissed on the ground that revision is not maintainable under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In view of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Ganpat Roy and Ors. v. Additional District Magistrate and Ors., (1985) 2 SCC 307 : 1985 (2) ARC 73, revision under Section 18 of the Act is not maintainable against the order declaring vacancy. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of two Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court in the case of Achal Misra v. Ram Shankar Singh, 2000 (2) ARC 446, wherein the Apex Court has held that papers of Achal Mishra's case be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to be referred to a Larger Bench.