Badrunnisa vs Additional District Judge Kanpur and Others

Yatindra Singh, J.—This is the writ petition against the orders dated 1331984 and 1611985 passed by respondents No. 1 and 2 in proceedings for allotment under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to the Act for short).

Petitioners are the landlord of the premises in dispute. One Hadi Hassan was the tenant of the same. Petitioners filed a suit (JSCC No. 2440/1971) against Hadi Hassan for arrears of rent and ejectment. This suit was decreed for arrears of rent on 2541974, but was dismissed for the ejectment. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a revision, which was allowed and the petitioners suit for ejectment was also decreed. This judgment has become final Between the parties. One Ali Hassan the grandson of Hadi Hassan (the original tenant) filed an original suit No. 528 of 1975 for the declaration that the judgments decreed on 2541974 and 1531975 are fraudulent, null and void and that his grandfather colluded with the petitioners. This suit was dismissed on 19111980. Ali Hassan filed a first appeal and a second appeal, which were also dismissed on 1891982|and 5121982. In the meantime, petitioners also filed an execution application to evict Hadi Hassan, the original tenant. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, Ali Sher (Respondents No. 3) filed an application on 2291984 that the premise has been allotted in his favour on 1331984; he is in possession; and the execution proceedings be dropped. It is then that the petitioner came to know about the order dated 1331983. He filed a revision on 17101984 against the Order dated 1331984. This revision has) been dismissed on 16111985. It is against these orders that the present writ petition has been filed.

The petitioners says that; they had no knowledge about the order dated 1331984; no notice was served upon them before passing the impugned order; and came to know about this order only on They thereafter filed a 7101984 after looking into The petitioners have also facts in paragraphs 9 to 15 of 22091984. revision on the records stated these the writ petition. A counteraffidavit has been filed in this writ petition in which it is alleged that notice before allotment was served upon the petitioner. Be as it may, the petitioners had already filed a suit for eviction of Ali Hassan. They had obtained a decree of eviction against him and were prosecuting their execution against him. It is only after they get possession of the premises in dispute that they were required to file the release application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. In case they had any notice from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, there is no reason for them not to appear before him. The order dated 13 31984 is annexed as Ahnexure2 to the writ petition. It indicates that Hadi Hassan, the original tenant has stated before the Inspector that he wishes to vacate the premises in near future. He never informed the Inspector that in the suit from the petitioners (landlord) he has already been ordered to be evicted and the execution proceedings are going on. This order has been passed in absence of material facts. Not only this order is illegal, but the order of the District Judge dated 1611985 is also illegal. In the facts and circumstances of the case the delay in filing the revision ought to have been condoned.

The orders dated 16111985 and 1331984 are illegal and are quashed. The matter is sent back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide whether the premise should be released in favour of the landlord or not? The respondent No. 3 is merely in position of a prospective allottee. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer will first decide whether the property should be released in favour or the landlords or not and in case his application is dismissed, he may allot it in accordance with law. Petition allowed.