VIMAL KUMARI VERMA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Property in dis pute was released under section 16 Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 through order dated 16. 4. 1993 in favour of Ramwati mother of Om Prakash-respondent No. 3 in both the writ petitions. It had been declared vacant through order dated 25. 2. 1993. The orders were passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/additional City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 40 of 1992. The release order was challenged in rent revision No. 49 of 1993-Vimal Kumari v. Ramwati and others. The said revi sion was dismissed on 6. 7. 2001 by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar. Thereafter petitioner filed review petition under section 16 (5) of the Act. It was registered as Case No. 255 of 2001. In the said review petition title dispute was raised through which not only the title of Ramwati was dis puted but it was further alleged that Ramwati had executed a Will on 24. 8. 1991 hence Om Prakash was not entitled to remain in possession or get pos session. Learned Counsel for the petitioner categorically states that his client is not in possession. Review petition was dismissed by R. C. &e. O. /a. C. M. (V), Kanpur Nagar on 11. 1. 2008 (Case No. 255 of 2001 Smt. Vimal Kumar v. Om Prakash ). Against the said order vision was filed being Rent Revision No. 24 of 2008 which has also been dismissed on 3. 4. 2008. Said orders have been chal lenged through second writ petition. Petitioner had also filed fresh release application which was also rejected on 11. 1. 2008 by R. C. &e. O. /a. C. M. (V), Kanpur Nagar. The said case was registered as Case No. 90 of 2006 as well as y 116 of 2006-Smt. Vimla Kumari v. Om Prakash. Against the said order also Rent Revision No. 23 of 2008 was filed which was dismissed on merit by In-charge District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 3. 4. 2008. Said orders have been chal lenged through the first writ petition.

(2.) QUESTION of title cannot be seen by the R. C. &e. O.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, both the writ petition are dismissed. It is directed that in case petitioner is still in possession then she must at once be evicted through process of Court and shall also be liable to pay damages for use and occupation @ 1000/- per month since the date, on which revision directed against release order was dismissed (i. e. 6. 7. 2001) till actual vacation. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to R. C. &e. O. Kanpur Nagar within a week. Petition Dismissed. .