RAJ RANI Vs. IXTH ADJ AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Both these writ petitions have been filed by tenants. Sunil Kumar Wadhwa, respondent no.4 in both the writ petitions is the landlord. Tenanted accommodations in both the writ petitions are portions of building no.80/74 Cooperganj, Kanpur. Smt. Raj Rani is tenant of two rooms at the rent of Rs. 12.50 per month while Mohammad Qasim and Bab Ullash petitioners in the second writ petition are tenants of two rooms and a Varandah at the rent of Rs. 20 per month. Landlord filed suit for eviction against both the tenants. Suit filed against Smt. Raj Rani was registered as S.C.C. Suit no.351 of 1990 and suit filed against Mohd. Qasim and Ban Ullash was registered as S.C.C. Suit no.321 of 1989. Both the suits were filed for the eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent. During pendency of suits allotment applications of the portions in possession of the petitioners were also filed. In respect of portion in occupation of Smt Raj Rani, allotment application was filed by Vakil Uddin, respondent no.3 in the first writ petition and in respect of the portion of Mohd Qasim and another allotment application was filed by Mohan Lal respondent no.3 in the second writ petition. R.C. & E.O. declared the tenanted portions as vacant through order dated 11.02.1991. In the first case pertaining to first writ petition the order was passed by R.C. & E.O./A.C.M II, Kanpur Nagar in case no.61 of 1999 and in the case pertaining to the other writ petition order was passed by the same R.C. & E.O. in case no.60 of 1999. Thereafter, through orders dated 06.03.1991 portions in dispute were allotted to respondent no.3 in each writ petition. Against the said order both the petitioners filed revisions. The revision filed by Smt. Raj Rani was numbered as rent Revision no.30 of 1991 and was dismissed by IXth A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar on 01.11.1994 on the ground that vacancy declaring order had not been challenged through writ petition. Petitioners of the other writ petition i.e. Mohd. Qasim and another also filed revision which was numbered as rent revision no. 29 of 1991 and was dismissed on the same ground by IXth A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar on 01.11.1994. Through these writ petitions orders declaring vacancy, orders of allotment and orders of Revisional Court dismissing the revision have been challenged.

(3.) The Supreme Court in Achal Misra Vs. Rama Shanker Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2372 : 2006 (2) ARC 496 : 2006 SCFBRC 381 , has held that in revision against release/allotment order, order declaring vacancy can also be questioned. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. Orders passed by the Revisional Court are set aside and revision are restored on the file of lower revisional court to decide the same on merit. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Revisional Court on 08.09.2008. Revisions shall be decided very expeditiously.