Girish Prasad Mathur, J. - (1.) THE parties have exchanged affidavits and therefore the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.
(2.) IT appears that one Nakched was tenant of the premises bearing No. 119/318, Bamba Road, Darshan Purwa, Kanpur. He died on 31 -5 -1988. The landlord respondent No. 2 move an application for release of the premises in his favour on the ground that the same has fallen vacant. The petitioner -Gulab Chandra Sharma filed objection before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer claiming that he was tenant of premises and the same had not fallen vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 30 -3 -1989 held that the petitioner had become tenant of the premises after the death of Nakched and therefore, the same was not vacant. The landlord filed a revision against the said order which was allowed by the Addl. District Judge by order dated 23 -1 -1990 and the case was remanded to Rent Control and Eviction Officer for reconsideration. After remand, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 23 -3 -1991 declared the premises as vacant and thereafter released the same in favour of the landlord by order dated 11 -11 -1991. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of the orders dated 23 -3 -1991 and 11 -11 -1991. Subsequently, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he was not pressing the writ petition in so far as the prayer for quashing of the order dated 11 -11 -1991 is concerned as he had an alternative remedy of filing a revision under Section 18 of the Act. The order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge shows that he did not accept the claim of the petitioner that he had become tenant by virtue of Section 3(a) of the Act as he was not found to be heir of the original tenant, namely, Shri Nakched. The case was remanded for fresh decision as to whether the petitioner had become a regular tenant by virtue of Section 14. The operative portion of the order shows that only a limited question was to be considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer; namely as to whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act or not. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, has however, again adverted to the same question as to whether the petitioner is legal heir of the deceased -tenant and whether he would come within the definition of word 'tenant' as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act. In my opinion, the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer suffers from manifest error of law inasmuch as question decided by him had already become final in view of the order dated 23 -3 -1991 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge. It was not at all open to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to reconsider the said question as the same had already been decided. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had to decide as to whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. This question has not been considered in a correct perspective. In these circumstances. I consider it proper to direct the authority to reconsider this question in accordance with law.
(3.) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 28 -3 -1991 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is quashed. He is directed to decide the question of vacancy in accordance with the order dated 23 -1 -1990 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge in Rent Control Revision No. 35 of 1989. Since, the case has become quite old, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer will conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within three months of the production of a certified copy of this order before him. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned for the parties on payment of usual charges within ten days.;