- (1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 1.8.2007 and 25.6.2007 (Annexures 6 and 5 to writ petition). Further a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.4.2007 respectively. The facts as emerged in view of fact as stated in writ petition are that the disputed accommodation No. 109/238 Ram Krishna Nagar Kanpur Nagar was owned by late Smt. Chandra Devi Tewari, W/o late Shri Sidha Nath Tewari. Smt. Chandra Devi Tewari was having three daughters respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Smt. Chandra Devi Tewari was having no source of income, as such, for the purposes of marriage of her daughter-respondent No. 6, she has taken loan of Rs. 1 lac for the purposes of marriage. Admittedly, Smt. Chandra Devi Tewari was the owner of the said accommodation having four tenants apart from her residential accommodation including back portion of one room, one store room, kitchen bathroom and verandah. It was decided to mortgage the aforesaid accommodation for Rs. 1 lac and possession of said property was given to petitioner. An instrument to that effect was also executed on 15.1.1998. Smt. Chandra Devi Tiwari mother of respondent died on 18.7.2003. As stated by petitioner that an application was given by respondent No. 7 in connivance with respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for the purposes of allotment of the accommodation which was in possession of petitioner. Some other persons have also made an application for the said purpose. Rent Control and Eviction Officer after inspection under Rule 8(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Rules, 1972 notified the vacancy on the basis of the said application. When petitioner came to know regarding making an application for allotment, he immediately took objection that said accommodation cannot be declared vacant in view of the fact that a mortgage deed has already been executed in favour of petitioner by the mother of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and he cannot be treated to be unauthorised occupant and by virtue of said mortgage deed, he has become co-landlord but by order dated 24.4.2007, vacancy was declared. Immediately after declaring of vacancy, an application for release of the accommodation was filed under section 16(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that building was let out without any order of allotment and alleged agreement, if any, is not binding upon respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and competent authority on the basis of the pleading of the parties, has passed an order releasing the accommodation in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The order was passed on 25.6.2007 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer releasing the accommodation of first floor consisting of one room, one store, verandah, latrine, bathroom and kitchen which was in possession of petitioner.
(2.) Petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed a revision. Revisional Court has rejected the revision vide its order dated 1.8.2007 holding therein that as revision under section 18 of the Act has been filed against an order dated 25.6.2007 which is the order of release of the accommodation in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 6, therefore, revision itself is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) Smt. Sunita Agarwal learned Counsel appearing for respondents has raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition that order of vacancy dated 24.4.2007 has already become final and it has not been challenged by petitioner in any proceeding, therefore, this writ petition challenging the order of release only dated 25.6.2007 is not maintainable and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.;