ANIL KUMAR VERMA Vs. VINAY LAXMI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Property in dispute, which is in the form of one room, was allotted to the petitioner. Initially Smt. Sushil Kunwar was its owner. After her death, respondent No. 1 Smt. Vinay Laxmi who is daughter of Sushil Kunwar inherited the same. Smt. Sushil Kunwar through will bequeated her properties including the property in dispute to respondent No. 1 her daughter and respondent No. 2Chetanya Shanker Nagar (C.S. Nagar in short) who was her nephew (Bhanja). Smt. Sushil Kunwar died on 3 4.1999. Petitioner filed an allotment application before R.C. & E.O. stating there in that he had been inducted as tenant by Smt. Sushil Kunwar on 1.2.1999. Respondent No. 2 C.S. Nagar who was holding power of attorney executed by respondent No. 1 gave his consent on the said allotment application.

(2.) Vacancy was declared on 29.8.2003 and accommodation in dispute was allotted to the petitioner by R.C. & E.O. on 3.9.2003. The fact of execution of power of attorney is not disputed by learned Counsel for the landlady respondent No. 1 however he has argued that the allotment is a result of fraud and collusion in between petitioner and respondent No. 2 and that respondent No. 2 exceeded his authority in giving consent for allotment. It has also been argued that respondent No. 2 did not give consent in his capacity as attorney but as owner, which was factually incorrect. Thereafter respondent No. 1 find review application before R.C. & E.O. The case was registered as case No. 41 of 2003 on the file of R.C. & E.O./City Magistrate, Aligarh. R.C. & E.O. by order-dated 13.5.2005 held that allotment order had been obtained by concealing the facts. R.C. & E.O. through order-dated 13.5.2005 recalled the allotment order dated 3.9.2003 and restored the case on its original number fixed 20.5.2005 for further proceedings. Thereafter through order dated 25.5.2005 room in dispute was released in favour of the respondent No. 1.

(3.) Meanwhile petitioner had also field O.S. No. 116 of 2005 for injunction impleading the respondent No 2 as defendant No 1 and respondent No. 1 as defendant N. 2. Suit was filed in March 2005. The relief claimed was that the defendants should be restrained from evicting the plaintiff except in accordance with law. In the said suit temporary injunction order was also passed.