HAJI ABDUL SAMAD Vs. JALAL UDDIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUARTER No. 49 of House No. 101/288, Colo-nelganj, Kanpur, was previously in the tenancy of one Mohd. Yakub. According to the allegation set out in the writ petition the petitioner was living with Yakub in the said house. An Application was filed by Jalal Uddin respondent No. 1 for its allotment sometime in 1971 on the ground that Yakub had left the premises and as there was a va­cancy in respect of the aforesaid quarter,, the same may be allotted to him. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the premises to Jalal Uddin, respondent No. 1 on February 22, 1972.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the above premises was in his possession since long and that the learned District Judge committed an error in not giving the benefit of Section 14 to him. It appears to me that the aforesaid Section 14 could not be pressed into service in the instant case as an application under Sec­tion 7-A was pending on the date of the commencement of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. One of the requirements to be fulfilled in order to get the benefit of the aforesaid section is that any proceeding un­der Section 7-A of the Old Act must not be pending as against the person claiming its benefit. As in the instant case such a proceeding was pending the petitioner cannot get its advantage.

(3.) IN the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. The stay order is discharged. Petition dismissed.