SHAKUNTALA AGRAWAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are disposed of together as they relate to common questions of Jaw and facts. The reference to the parties shall be taken from Writ Petition No. 3576 of 1982.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is owner and landlady of premises No. 32/80 Ghumini Bazar. Kanpur. The ground floor consists of many shops and first floor consists of 9 rooms, latrine, bath room and kitchen, etc. Respondent No. 3 filed an application for allotment of the first floor premises consisting of 4 rooms on the allegations that one Sheo Das was tenant of the accommodation in question and as he had vacated the same, the accommodation should be deemed as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer asked the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report who submitted a report that one Sheo Das was tenant of the accommodation in question on the first floor and he having vacated the same, the accommodation should be treated as vacant. He recorded the statement of one Jai Narain son of Ram Narain and one Misri Lal, who had stated that Sheo Das was a tenant and he had left the accommodation. It was further indicated that Smt. Shakuntala Devi, the petitioner was in its occupation but she had permitted it to be occupied by one Sukh Nandan. The petitioner filed objection and it was denied that Sheo Das was a tenant of the disputed premises. It was Stated that she had three Munims, namely Ram Ball. Sheo Nandan and Mukesh Prasad who were looking after her property and business. Respondent No. 2 after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that Sheo Das was a tenant and after it was vacated by him the landlady unauthorized permitted one Sukh Nandan to occupy the accommodation in question and declared vacancy on 3.7.1981. After declaring vacancy, he passed an allotment order in favour of respondent No. 3 on 7.8,1981. The petitioner filed a revision against the said order before respondent No. 1 who has dismissed it on 18.1.1982, The petitioner filed an application for review of these orders before respondent No. 2 under Section 16 (5) of V. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act'). Respondent No. 2 rejected the application on 23.1.1982 on the ground that the revision filed by the petitioner having already been dismissed against the order declaring vacancy and allotment order by the District Judge, the - review application was not maintainable. The petitioner preferred a revision against that order before respondent No. 1 who dismissed It on 5.2.1982.

(3.) The petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 586 of 1982 again., the order dated 3.7.1981 declaring vacancy, the order dated 7.8.1981 passing the allotment order in favour of respondent No. 3 and order dated 18.1.1982 dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order. Writ Petition No. 3576 of 1982 has been filed against: the orders which were already challenged in Writ Petition No. 586 of 1982 as well as the order dated 23.1.1982 passed on review application filed by the petitioner and the order dated 5.2.1982 dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order.