- (1.) R. P. Misra, J. Heard Sri Vibhav Bhushan Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S. F. A. Naqvi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri L. P. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and Sri Prem Chandra, learned Counsel for Nagar Nigam, Moradabad (in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30982 of 2003 ).
(2.) AT the very outset this Court is constrained to mention that it is very surprising and shocking that in spite of the fact that it is admitted between the parties that the building in question is more than hundred years old and is in dilapidated condition, the respondents are not vacating the same, despite orders passed by the Prescribed Authority which have been affirmed by this Court. The factual matrix of the case is as under: The building in question is House No. 87-A/2, situate at Civil Lines in district Moradabad. On 20-1-1941, the Collector, Moradabad granted a perpetual lease of the building in question to one Govind Saran Kothiwal, who transferred the same to the petitioners on 29-4-1969 by means of a registered sale-deed. On 24-2-1963, when the building in question was in possession of the previous owner, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the same to the Employment Officer. On 4-12-1989, the petitioners filed two cases for release of the building in question, under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, (for short "the Act") one against the District Election Officer, which was numbered as P. A. Case No. 74 of 1989 and another against District Employment Officer, which was numbered as P. A. Case No. 75 of 1989. The ground for release was that building in question is dilapidated and is liable to be demolished for reconstruction. Both the release applications referred above were allowed by the Prescribed Authority by two separate orders dated 11-1-1994 and it was observed that after reconstruction of the building, the petitioners will let out the same again on fresh terms and conditions, if the tenants will so desire.
(3.) AGAINST both the aforesaid orders dated 11-1-1994, the respondents filed two appeals, which were numbered as Appeal Nos. 3 and 4 of 1994 and were dismissed by order dated 12-5-1998 passed by IX Additional District Judge, Moradabad. Against the aforesaid order dated 12-5-1998, District Magistrate and District Election Officer filed a writ petition, numbered as Writ Petition No. 30988 of 1998 and the Regional Employment Officer, filed another writ petition, numbered as Writ Petition No. 26471 of 1998. It is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions, on 27-6-2001 the Regional Employment Officer vacated the building in question and handed over the possession of the same to the petitioners. Therefore, on 3-4-2002, the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 26471 of 1998 filed by the Regional Employment Officer, was dismissed as infructuous and the Writ Petition No. 30988 of 1998 filed by the District Election Officer, was dismissed on merits. Thereafter on 25-9-2002, the District Election Officer sent a letter to the Chief Election Officer of Uttar Pradesh for granting permission to file Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid order dated 3-4-2002 passed by this Court. The Chief Election Officer of Uttar Pradesh on 11-12-2002 rejected the permission sought for filing the Special Leave Petition. The District Election Officer again on 22-1-2003, sought permission to file Special Leave Petition, which was also rejected on 27-1- 2003. Thus, the aforesaid orders dated 11-1-1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release applications of the petitioners, attained finality.;