MADAN LAL Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE crucial and relevant events and the issues raised in the present writ petition are condensed within 24 hours ; between 28 November, 1985 and 29 November, 1985. THE controversy in the writ petition can best be appreciated by not ignoring the submissions made on behalf of the contesting respondents at the close of arguments at the Bar. It was contended on behalf of the contesting respondent, that notwithstanding the fact that he had taken the law in his own hands, yet the petitioner must be relegated to the alternate remedy in persuing the revision filed before the District Judge, Allahabad and accordingly the writ petition be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable for reasons that an alternate remedy had yet to be exhausted. This Court, regard being had to the circumstances of the present case, noticed the submissions but negatived the request.

(2.) THE present writ petition invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek redress against an alleged auction of what today is commonly known as house-grabbing.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondent no. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the contesting respondent), the arguments of the petitioner were countered by two submissions. Firstly that the petition is misconceived, as against an order of allotment a revision lies before the District Judge and this remedy has already been initiated by the petitioner and the revision is pending. We will deal with this argument subsequently in detail. The second submission is that even according to the entries on the record of the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad the property has not been partitioned and is recorded jointly in the names of six persons mentioned above, and in the writ petition. The premises, in effect, not being identifiable, it is contended, saves the allotment order even though it may not be specific in reference to the identity of accommodation.