MAULANA AINUL HAQUE KASMI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO. IV SULTANPUR AND 2 OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2013-7-315
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 30,2013

Maulana Ainul Haque Kasmi Appellant
VERSUS
Additional District Judge Court No. Iv Sultanpur And 2 Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) In this case on 22.07.2013 following order was passed: "Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Naseerullah, learned counsel for respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent states that after the death of Syed Masood who was manager of the respondent no.3 his son Syed Sultan Masood became manager. - Petitioner filed substitution application seeking substitution of two sons of Syed Masood i.e. Syed Sultan Masood and Rizwan Mahmood which has already been allowed. Judgment reserved. Untill delivery of judgment, interim order, if any, shall continue. "
(2.) Property in dispute, which is a residential portion (room) was allotted to the petitioner by R.C & E.O./ A.D.M. (Administration) Sultanpur under Section 16 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 through order dated 28.12.1990, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Vacancy had earlier been declared on 18.11.1990. Room in dispute is part of house No.378, (new No.446) situate in Mohalla Shahganj Chikmandi, Sultanpur. Against the said order, respondent No.3, Madrsa Ainul Ulloom through (Secretary), Syed Masood filed application for review under Section 16(5) of the Act. The said application was allowed on 15.05.1999 by the R.C. & E.O. and vacancy order dated 18.11.1990 and allotment order dated 28.12.1990 were set aside. Against the order dated 15.05.1999, petitioner filed Civil Revision No.76 of 1999. A.D.J., Court No.4, Sultanpur through judgment and order dated 21.08.2002 dismissed the revision, hence this writ petition.
(3.) The petitioner in his allotment application had shown that one Mohd. Idris was the landlord of the accommodation in dispute and that he (petitioner) was residing therein as licencee/ tenant. Mohd. Idris, the alleged landlord filed affidavit before R.C. & E.O. that he had no objection to the allotment on 11.12.1990. In the said affidavit, he also stated that he was landlord of the house of which room in dispute was a part and his name was entered as such in the records and petitioner was residing as licencee in the said room. It was mentioned in the allotment order that no other application for allotment was received. Rent was fixed to be Rs. 150/- per month.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.