- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is alleged that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of House No. 212/1, South Civil Lines, Muzaffarnagar. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 2 in connivance with the officials of the office of Rent Control & Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar manipulated a vacancy report with regard to the aforesaid property and on a single day an order was passed declaring vacancy, advertisement and finally the premises was allotted to respondent No. 2 and she was also handed over possession.
(2.) When the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid fact, he preferred Revision No. 5 of 2003 before the District Judge and after six long years he was able to obtain an order dated 9.10.2009 whereby the revision was allowed and the allotment order and the proceedings were quashed. The respondent No. 2 challenged the aforesaid revisional order in Writ Petition No. 57338 of 2009 before this Court which after hearing the parties dismissed the petition with the finding that it was devoid of any merits on 4.11.2009. However, on the request of the Counsel for the respondent No. 2 for being granted a reasonable time to vacate the premises, it was directed that the respondent No. 2 would file an affidavit giving an undertaking before the Court below that she would hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the petitioner landlord within three months and would not induct any third person. She was further directed that the rent as fixed by the rent controller should be paid within one month. Instead of giving the undertaking or paying any rent in pursuance of the directions, it appears that the respondent No. 2 instituted a Civil Suit No. 1232 of 2009 staring that she had bought a portion of the disputed house from one of the co-owners but she failed to obtain any interim order in the said suit.
(3.) It is also alleged that the order of this Court together with application and an affidavit of the petitioner were filed before the Rent Controller but to no avail. However, at last on 28.10.2009 the Rent Control & Eviction Officer passed an order for issuing process for dispossession. Nevertheless, on 16.12.2009 he stayed the aforesaid order dated 28.10.2009 on the ground that in the meantime the respondent No. 2 had bought portions of the disputed house.;