R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.5.2002 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/District Magistrate, Allahabad, contained in Annexure -9 to the writ petition. Prayer for an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue notice in the Form 'C' and 'D' under R.14 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) hereinafter called 'the Act', in accordance with law and as recommended by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in recommendation dated 22.12.2001 to the respondent No. 1 within a very short time relating to the accommodation consisting of two rooms, one store room, one kitchen on the first floor of premises No. 252, Mohalla Madhwapur, Allahabad, hereinafter called the 'building in question', has also been made.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the respondent No. 3 was occupant of building in question as a tenant. The petitioner filed an application under section 16(1)(b) read with section 12 of the Act, before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the release of the building, as according to him, the same was deemed vacant. The application filed by the petitioner was contested by respondent No. 3. Parties produced evidence, in support of their cases. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after going through the material on the record, rejected the release application vide his order dated 11.1.1987. The petitioner, challenging the validity of the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, filed a revision before the revisional authority. The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 20.11.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No. 3351 of 1991 challenging the validity of the aforesaid orders. During the pendency of the said petition, the parties have entered into a compromise and have filed a joint affidavit. Paragraph No. 10 of the said affidavit read as under: 10. That good cause (sense) has now prevailed on both the parties after having personal talks amongst themselves. The respondent No. 3 is ready to vacate the disputed accommodation within a period of one year from the date of filing the compromise and accordingly disposal of the writ petition and the petitioners are also ready to accept the offer of the respondent No. 3 and allow him time to vacate the disputed accommodation within a period of one year from the date of final disposal and discharge of this writ petition and all other concerned cases. The petitioners have decided to withdraw this writ petition as not pressed. On the basis of the said affidavit, the statement was given by the learned counsel for the parties before this Court that they will abide by the undertakings given by them. Relying upon the statements made by their counsel and upon the undertaking given by the parties, this Court passed following order in the writ petition on 16.8.1996. In view of the facts stated in the application filed on 15.5.1995, this writ petition is dismissed.
(3.) THEREAFTER , the respondent No. 3 filed an application for recalling the order dated 16.8.1996. The said application was opposed by the other side and was ultimately dismissed by this Court on 1.8.2001 and the following order was passed on the said application: Heard. In both these cases common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. It is apparent from the material on the record that the order dated 16.8.1996 was passed on the basis of the facts stated in the application dated 153.1995 which was supported by an affidavit of both the parties. No ground for recalling of said order is at all made out, this application is accordingly rejected.;