CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Om Prakash Bajpai vs Vth Additional District Judge and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 30 August 2001 · Citation: (2001) 08 AHC CK 0061

HON’BLE JUDGES
Yatindra Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 — Section 14, 16
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No 41148 of 2000
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 415 words

Yatindra Singh J.

1.

This is a writ petition against the order dated 1121999 and 2021999 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (the Act) declaring vacancy and allotting it in favour of the Respondent No. 3 and the order of the Vth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 492000 dismissing the revision of the petitioner.

2.

I have heard Pankaj Bhatia Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kushal Kant for the Respondent No. 3. The petitioner submits:

(i) The petitioner is in possession since 1969 and his possession has been regularised under Section 14 of the Act.

(ii) The order of vacancy was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and is illegal.

(iii) Even if there is vacancy, the premises ought to have been allotted to him and not to Respondent No.3 as he is in possession since 1969.

(iv) There was delay of only few days in filing the revision and as there was sufficient cause it ought to have been condoned.

3.

The contesting respondent submits:

(i) The petitioner is subtenant without the consent of the landlord and his possession is unauthorised.

(ii) The petitioner has neither any right nor any locus standi to object the declaration of vacancy. He has no right to file the revision.

(iii) The revision was rightly dismissed as barred by time.

4.

The first three submissions raised by the petitioner and first two submissions raised by the respondent touch upon the merit of case as the revision was dismissed on the ground of the limitation, there is no justification to decide them here at this stage.

5.

According to the petitioner he came to know about the orders of the Rent Control Officer on 441997. Thereafter, he inspected the record and filed the revision on 2041999. These facts were in the personal knowledge of the petitioner. In view of this the Revisional Court ought to have condoned the delay in filing the revision and heard the case on merit. The order dated 492000 is illegal and is quashed. The parties may appear before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on!792001. The District Judge, Kanpur Nagar may decide the case himself or he may transfer it to any other competent Court. Thereafter the case itself may be decided on merits in accordance with law if possible within3 months.

6.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.