- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.9.1982 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur in Rent revision No. 18 of 1982 whereby the order dated 1.1.1982 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 16(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in Short "the Act") and the allotment order dated 8.4.1981 passed in favour of the petitioner was set aside. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the writ petition, are as follows: On 13.10.1980 the petitioner applied for allotment of a Quarter No. 98 at premises No. 95/91 Aminganj District Kanpur (in short 'disputed premises') in dispute under section 16(1)(a) of the Act in his favour. The Rent Control Inspector submitted its report on 29.11.1980 stating therein that the respondent No. 3 Haqim Ullah was found in possession of the premises in dispute since last 30 years. The respondent No. 3 Hakim Ullah filed his objection on the ground that that he has been residing in the disputed premises since last 30 years as joint tenant with Mohammad Alam, who left for Delhi 3-4 years back and claimed benefit of section 14 of the Act. Both the parties filed their affidavits and examined witnesses. The respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 30.3.1981 declared vacancy repelling the contentions raised by the respondent No. 3 and held that the respondent No. 3 was not entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Act as he was not residing in the disputed premises as tenant with the consent of the landlord. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 by order dated 8.4.1981 allotted the disputed premises in favour of the petitioner under section 16(1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 moved an application on 16.4.1981 under section 16(5) of the Act for review of the orders dated 30.3.1981 and 8.4.1981. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide his order dated 1.1.1982 rejected the review application of the respondent No. 3.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 1.1.1982, the respondent No. 3 preferred a revision before the respondent No. 1 under section 18 of the Act.
(3.) The Revisional Court vide its judgment and order dated 1.9.1982 allowed the revision of the respondent No. 3 and set aside the order dated 1.1.1982 as well as the order dated 8.4.1981. Hence, the present writ petition.;