Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) THE present petition is directed against the order dated 20 -11 -1991 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur. The Petitioner who claimed to be the sitting tenant filed a revision under Section 18 against an order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord. By order dated 10 -5 -1989 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has declared vacancy in the disputed premises. This order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 16176 of 1986. The petition was dismissed with the following order: Having heard the learned counsel for the and on perusal of the order impugned herein, I am not at all satisfied that a good ground for interference has been made out. I find no illegality in the order dated 10 -0 -1989. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(2.) THE petitioner then again filed another writ petition being writ petition No. 16239 of 1989. This petition was also dismissed by order dated 11 -1 -1991 only on the ground that since an earlier writ petition against the same order was filed, subsequent petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Rule 7 of Chapter XII of the Rules of the Court. In the mean time the application for the release of the disputed premises by the landlord was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 15 -11 -1991. The order dated 15 -11 -1991 was challenged in Revision Petition No. 621 of 1991 under Section 18 of the Act. The learned District Judge dismissed the revision as not maintainable in view of the decision in the case Ganpat Roy v. The Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad and others : 1985 (II) ALR 423 (SC). This order rejecting the revision has been impugned in the present writ petition. The order declaring the vacancy has become final in so far as the petitioner is concerned and it can not be agitated now in these proceedings. In these circumstances the petitioner can not be treated to be a person aggrieved by the order passed under Section 16(1) at whose instance a revision under Section 18 of the Act could be filed. I see no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds raised in the petition. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that since the petitioner is in occupation of the premises and has been depositing rent under Section 30 of the Act, he may be given some time to vacate the premises. The learned counsel for the respondent Sri Vijay Bahadur did not seriously oppose to this request of the petitioner. The petitioner is granted three months' time to deliver vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent No. 3 provided he furnishes an undertaking in this regard before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer within 15 days of receipt of a certified copy of this order. This indulgence would be available only in case the petitioner furnishes the undertaking. A certified copy of the order may be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of requisite charges within 48 hours.;