ASHOK TRIVEDI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorori, quashing the order dated 27.1.1996 whereby the building No. 25, Hazratganj, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow (for short the building in question) was allotted to respondent No. 3 and order dated 14.2.95, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid allotment order was dismissed by the District Judge, Lucknow acting as revisional authority under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act).

(2.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the building in question, which was in occupation of Hercules Insurance Company, which later merged into United Fire and General Insurance Company vacated the said building. Sri R. N. Kapoor, the landlord who has been arrayed as respondent No. 4 made an application for release of the said building in his favour. The release application filed by respondent No. 4 was, however, rejected by the Rent, Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 13.1.1976. Respondent No. 3 also applied for allotment of the building in question in his favour. It was on 15.1.1976 that the building in question was declared as vacant and thereafter vide order dated 25.2.1976 the same was allotted to respondent No. 3. The outgoing tenant challenged the validity of the order dated 25.2.1976 as well as order dated 15.1.1976 referred to above. The revision filed by the outgoing tenant was allowed by the revisional authority by its judgment and order dated 8.2.78.

(3.) Order dated 15.1.1976 and 25.2.1976 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer were set aside by the revisional authority and the case was sent back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for decision afresh after following the procedure prescribed under law. Meanwhile petitioner also applied for allotment of the building in his favour in the month of April, 1980. Rent Control and Eviction Officer after following the procedure prescribed under law again declared the building in question as vacant vide order dated 16.9.1981 and allotted the said building in favour of the petitioner on 18.7.84. The validity of the order dated 18.7.84 was challenged by the United India Fire and General Insurance Company by filing the Revision No. 35 of 1984. Respondent No. 3 also challenged the validity of the order dated 18.7.84. Revision filed by him was registered as Revision No. 34 of 1984. It will not be out of place to state that during the pendency of the said revisions, possession over the building in question was delivered to the petitioner on 21.8.1985 and after taking possession over the building in question, the petitioner invested substantial amount over it and established his business in the building in question. The aforesaid revisions were heard and decided by the judgment and order dated 15.9.1987 by the revisional authority. The revisions were allowed and the order dated 18.7.84 was set aside. The petitioner challenging the validity of the order dated 15.9.1987 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7365 of 1987. It was on 4.11.1987 that the interim stay order was granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner. However, ultimately the writ petition was dismissed on 12.12.1989 observing as under : "The Additional District Magistrate will now consider all pending applications, or in case it is permissible, he can invite fresh applications also for allotment or premises but no observations in this behalf can be made. As the matter is old, it is expected that the authority concerned will conclude allotment proceedings within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it by the petitioner. It may, however, be noted that this time proceedings shall not be taken by the officer who earlier took the proceedings. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. However, there will be no order as to costs."