- (1.) In this writ petition an interim order was passed on 9th August, 2007 directing the petitioner to pay certain amount towards damage/rent of the premises in question where against he filed Civil Appeal No. 8182 of 2010 (SLP (C) No. 19644 of 2007) which was allowed by Apex Court vide judgment dated 20th September, 2010 with the following observation/direction: 3. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave. This Court has held that if the disputed premises is a single residential unit consisting of several rooms, kitchen, verandah, latrine, bathroom etc. the question of assessing the rent/damage/licence fee with reference to each room or portion separately does not arise. This Court also held that where the High Court chooses to impose any condition in regard to the interim stay of eviction or dispossession, such condition should not be unreasonable or oppressive or in terrorem. In appropriate cases, the Court may even refuse interim stay. While granting stay in writ petitions filed by persons claiming to be tenants/occupants; the High Court can certainly impose a condition for payment of rent/damages, to safeguard the interests of the landlord/owner, it cannot direct the occupant to pay an arbitrary amount worked out room-wise without any evidence or material as has been done in this case, even when such direction is issued as a condition for stay of eviction/dispossession. We also find that the observation that if the rent/damages/licence fee as directed by the High Court was not paid the landlord may directly move the Superintendent of Police concerned for eviction of the tenant by police force is improper and unwarranted. 4. In the circumstances we set aside the said interim order dated 9.8.2007. The High Court may either dispose of the writ petition itself expeditiously or pass appropriate interim orders after reconsideration in accordance with law. In view thereof this matter was listed on 14.8.2012 and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties was directed to be taken up today for final disposal.
(2.) Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner was occupying premises in dispute namely House No. 80-A, First Floor, Dakshni Bhopa Road, Muzaffar Nagar without any letter of allotment and thereafter moved an application dated 21st April, 2004 before Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter referred to as "R.C.E.O.") for allotment of accommodation in question to the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid application and after obtaining report from Tehsildar, R.C.E.O. found occupation of premises by petitioner unauthorized and hence declared vacancy in the premises in dispute by order dated 2.7.2007 whereagainst petitioner preferred Civil Revision No. 2/2007 which has also been dismissed on 27.7.2007.
(3.) Sri Gupta learned Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that occupation of premises by petitioner without letter of allotment was patently unauthorized and illegal.;