Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the judgments and order dated 18.6.1983 and 15.2.1984, Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 to the writ petition passed by respondents no. 2 and l respectively. By the aforesaid order dated 18.61983 the Addl. City Magistrate held that:- JUDGEMENT_8_TLALL0_2003Image1.jpg By order dated 15.2.1984 it has been held that- "I have gone through these two pronouncements and I am not to agree with the learned counsel that this court after issuing order for restitution on 7.7.78 can again pass an order for restitution specially when the R.C.&E.O. acting on the guide line laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition decided on 17.1.83 has chosen to reject the same. The application to my mind is, not maintainable. It has therefore, to be rejected as not maintainable. Order The application is a accordingly rejected as not maintainable. The parties are left to bear their own cost. S/d B.C. Srivastava II Addl District Judge, Kanpur. Dt. 15.2.84."
(2.) The prayer for restoring possession over the premises in dispute has been rejected. The brief facts of the case are that the house in dispute was purchased by the father of the petitioner, Satish Chandra, since deceased, Benami in the name of his wife Smt. Sarasdwati Devi, respondent no.5. After the death of the father, the petitioner and his mother were residing in the aforesaid premises. Respondent no. 5 sold the property to respondent no. 3 through sale deed dated 23.11.1976 and handed over the possession of that premises, which was in her occupation.
(3.) Respondent no.3 after purchasing the property and taking over the possession of the portion of respondent no. 5 moved the release application under section 16 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against the petitioner on the ground that he was an unauthorized occupant. The vacancy in the aforesaid premises was notified by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the application for releases was allowed on 13.4.1977. Subsequently an order for delivery of possession was passed on 11.5.1977 and the petitioner was dispossessed from the disputed house.;