- (1.) Heard Sri Rajesh Mishra holding brief of Sri Vivek Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal alongwith Sri Manish Tandon, learned Counsel for the respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 7.5.2011 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional City Magistrate 1st, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'R.C.E.O.') releasing the accommodation in dispute and order dated 16.11.2013 passed by Additional District Judge Court No. 3 Kanpur in Rent Revision No. 45 of 2011 filed against the order dated 7.5.2011.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner claims himself to be tenant in the accommodation in dispute. The respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed an application under section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for declaring the vacancy and releasing the accommodation in dispute. After contest, the vacancy was declared on 24.2.1997. The order dated 24.2.1997 was challenged before this Court through writ petition No. 39341 of 1997. This writ petitioner was dismissed with the following order: Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that inspite of several letters the petitioner is not responding. He submits that in this view of the matter the order dated 27.7.2010 could not be complied with. No rejoinder-affidavit has been filed and there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner is depositing the damages/rent in lieu of his occupation. Sri K.K. Arora, learned Counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has shifted to his own shop in the market. Without entering into the merits of the case, as nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioner is depositing the damages/rent in lieu of his occupation, hence the petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 27.7.2010.
(3.) After dismissal of the writ petition by this Court, vacancy was declared by R.C.E.O. on 7.5.2011. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed Revision No. 45 of 2011. The revision was also dismissed. Now the petitioner has challenged the order of release alongwith the order dismissing the revision filed against the order of release.;