SHYAM PRAKASH Vs. IIND SPECIAL A.D.J.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of an order passed by the IInd Special Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi allowing the revision preferred by the landlords against the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Hardoi/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi. Relevant facts involved in the present controversy are that the opposite parties 2 and 3 are the landlords of house No. 397/2, new No. 192 situate in Mohalla Boarding House, Dharamshala Road, Hardoi. It is not in dispute that the original owner and landlord of the house in question was one Prabhu Dayal Gupta of whom the opposite parties 2 and 3 are the legal heirs and successors and Prabhu Dayal Gupta had died. On 9.6.97 one Awadhesh Pandey and on 10.6.97 one Shyam Prakash and Rakesh Behari Srivastava moved an application for allotment of the portion of the said house and the same was allotted in favour of Shyam Prakash the present petitioner on 3.7.97. The landlords filed a revision before the learned District Judge which came up for hearing before the II Special Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi who vide his order dated 3.12.97 allowed the same and while remanding the matter to the trial court also directed that the possession of the premises in question be re -delivered to the landlords and if necessary police force may be provided. Aggrieved by this order the present petition has been filed and an interim order was also passed in favour of the petitioner and as such the petitioner still continues in possession over the premises in question.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the findings recorded by the Revisional Court are contrary to record as the petitioner was a lawful allottee of the premises in question having been allotted to him by the Competent Authority on 3.7.97 and he having taken over the possession in pursuance of allotment order could not be directed to be evicted from the premises and the view taken by, the learned Revisional Court is palpably erroneous.

(3.) THE learned Revisional Court also found that there was an earlier litigation with respect to the premises in question in which the premises stood released in favour of the landlords under Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 by virtue of a compromise. This fact was also not considered by the trial court.