MUNNA LAL RAWAT Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 8.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 and father of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed an application under Ss. 12 and 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for declaration of vacancy and release of the disputed premises No. 272 Mohalla Kheldar, District Fatehpur. The aforementioned application was filed on the ground that one Shri Prem Shankar Rawat was the tenant of the premises in dispute and Munna Lal Rawat being relative of Prem Shankar Rawat was permitted by the tenant to reside with him. Subsequently, Prem Shankar Rawat was transferred from Fatehpur to Bindaki and Munna Lal Rawat has constructed his own house at Anand Puram Colony in Fatehpur. It is also mentioned in the aforementioned proceeding that son of Munna Lal Rawat is residing in the disputed premises. It is also mentioned that Munna Lal Rawat was never the tenant of the landlord but with the collusion of Prem Shankar Rawat he was unauthorized occupant in the disputed premises. In the aforementioned proceeding under Ss. 12 and 16 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 21/8/2004 denying averment made by the landlord in the release application. Yogendra, husband of respondent No. 2 and father of respondents No. 3 to 5 filed a SCC Suit No. 7 of 1993 impleading the Prem Shankar Rawat as well as Munna Lal Rawat as defendants for arrears of rent and ejectment from the premises in dispute. In the aforementioned SCC Suit, an application under Order XV, Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the C.P.C.) has been filed by landlord for striking off the defence of the defendant which was rejected by the Judge Small Cause. The aforementioned SCC Suit was decreed for arrears of rent/damages and the ejectment vide judgment and decree dtd. 27/2/2008. Against the judgment dtd. 27/2/2008 passed by Judge Small Cause, petitioner has filed a SCC revision No. 2 of 2008 which was admitted and eviction of the petitioner was stayed vide order dtd. 19/3/2008. The aforementioned revision is still pending before the Revisional Court and interim order is operating as mentioned in para No. 12 of the instant petition. In the judgment of Judge Small Cause, finding has been recorded that defendant No. 2/Munna Lal Rawat is a tenant and he did not construct any house in Fatehpur. The proceeding under Ss. 12 and 16 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 initiated by the landlord has been decided by Deputy Collector Fatehpur vide order dtd. 24/1/2005 rejecting the application for release. Against the order dtd. 24/1/2005 passed by the Deputy Collector Rent Revision No. 1 of 2005 was filed before the Revisional Court. Revisional Court allowed the revision vide judgment dtd. 18/5/2013 setting aside the order dtd. 24/1/2005 and remanded the case before the Trial Court to decide the case afresh in the light of the observation made in the body of the judgment. Hence, this petition for the following relief :-

(3.) This Court entertained the matter on 8/7/2013 and passed the following order :-