MALTI PANDEY Vs. LOK NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that initially petitioner was tenant but thereafter in the year 1993 agreement for sale was ex ecuted in his favour by one Anil Chandra Sinha. However, on enquiry from the Court, learned Counsel for the petitioner categorically states that during the last 15 years petitioner has not filed any suit for specific performance against Anil Chandra Sinha. Respondent No. 1 Lok Nath claimed that he had pur chased the property in dispute through registered sale deed executed by an other person. On the basis of the said sale deed he initiated proceedings for re lease under section 16 (1) (b) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), Varanasi before whom the case was registered as Case No. 19 of 2004 declared the vacancy of the accommodation in dispute. Thereafter recall application was filed by the petitioner before R. C. and E. O. on 14. 9. 2006. The said application was rejected on 26. 3. 2007. Against the said order petitioner filed revision being Rent Revision No. 6 of 2007. Revisipn has been dismissed on 17. 5. 2008 by Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Varanasi hence this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner came forward with the case that two agreements for sale had been executed in his favour one on 6. 9. 1993 and the other on 22. 9. 1993. THE learned Additional District Judge has very categorically mentioned that both the agreements are un-registered and one of the agreements is verified by Notary. Learned A. D. J. has further mentioned that the agreement dated 22. 9. 1993 clearly mentions that it is without possession. In Uttar Pradesh with effect from 1. 1. 1977 no agreement for sale is valid unless it is registered.