PURAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Apoorva Tiwari the counsel for the petitioner. No one is present on behalf the respondents.

(2.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dtd. 29/4/2014 which was passed on an application under Sec. 30(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as well as the order dtd. 15/9/2014 passed by the District Judge in Civil Revision No.222 of 2014 whereby the revision preferred against the order dtd. 29/4/2014 was dismissed.

(3.) The facts in brief are that the respondent no.3 on 12/10/2011 filed an application under Sec. 30(1) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 claiming himself to be the tenant of the premises situate at 338, 5th Street, Rajendra Nagar, Lucknow and also claimed that the petitioner was the landlord. It was alleged that the rent of the premises was Rs.100.00 per month and was being deposited as the petitioner had refused to accept the same. The said application was registered as Misc. Application No. 126 of 2011 (Annexure no.3). In reply to the said application, the petitioner filed his objection on 15/3/2014 stating that he was not the owner of the property in question and there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioner and the respondent no.3. It was also stated that the property in question was owned and possessed by the society namely Pioneer Montessori School and the respondent no.3 was never inducted as a tenant by the petitioner or by the society. It was also taken as a defense that the respondent no.3 was engaged for some construction work in the School and was allowed some rooms for storing the raw materials etc. and thereafter he was trying to retain occupation of the rooms allegedly claiming himself to be the tenant. The said application filed by the respondent no.3 was allowed by the Court vide order dtd. 29/4/2014 with direction that the respondent no. 3 may deposit the amount at his own risk. It was also observed that the petitioner had no right to file objection and in any case the same could not be decided in exercise of the power under Sec. 30(1) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision under Sec. 115 of the CPC. The said revision came to be dismissed on 15/9/2014 as not maintainable.