RAMJI SRI LAKSHMAN JI SRI JANKI JI AND SRI HANUMANJI ENSHRINE HOUSE VARANASI Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER/ADDITIONAL DISTT MAGISTRATE CIVIL SUPPLIES VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. These two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment, as jointly agreed upon by the learned Counsel for the parties. The fate of writ petition No. 2403 of 2007 is dependant on the success of the leading writ petition i. e. , writ petition No. 13237 of 2001.

(2.) THE background facts of the case are as follows : Gulab Das, the respondent No. 2 claiming himself owner and landlord on the basis of the sale-deed executed in his favour with respect to the property in question which according to the petitioner was one of the trust properties initiated proceedings for declaration of vacancy and release in respect of the disputed properties being house No. K-46/197, Mohalla Hartirath under Section 16 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 1st of August, 1995. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 24th of February, 1999 declared the vacancy and subsequently it was released by the order dated 15th of May, 1999 in favour of the respondent No. 2, Gulab Das. Gulab Nabi Azad, the alleged unauthorised occupant (hereinafter referred to as tenant) filed a review application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act to recall the order dated 24 of February, 1999 declaring the vacancy. THE said review application was dismissed by the order dated 3rd of January, 2001. Gulab Nabi Azad, respondent No. 6 herein was found as unauthorised occupant, and his eviction from the disputed property was ordered. He challenged the aforestated orders unsuccessfully before this Court in writ petition No. 2152 of 2001.

(3.) THE petitioner has sought quashing of the order declaring the vacancy as also the release order releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of Gulab Das, the respondent No. 2 and the order passed on the review application rejecting it filed by the tenant (respondent No. 6 ).