- (1.) The Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional City Magistrate 5th Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the "RCEO") vide order dated 24.07.1991 declared vacancy in accommodation in question and by another order dated 06.08.1991 released the same in favour of Sri Rajeev Prakash, who claimed himself to be the owner and landlord of disputed accommodation, by exercising powers under Section 16(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"). Thereagainst, the petitioner, claiming himself to be a tenant and a person validly possessing the disputed property, filed an application dated 21.08.1991seeking recall of orders dated 24.07.1991 and 06.08.1991. Simultaneously, he also filed a revision under Section 18 of Act, 1972 against both the aforesaid orders. The revision was dismissed on 24.08.1991 on the ground that it does not lie against an order declaring vacancy. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 16(5) of Act, 1972 on 17.01.1992 which was rejected on 19.02.1992. Thereagainst, he filed a revision which was dismissed on 25.02.1992. These two orders dated 19.02.1992 and 25.02.1992 led the petitioner to file Writ Petition No. 7980 of 1992. This writ petition was disposed of on 16.03.2000.
(2.) Besides above, the order dated 24.07.1991 was challenged by petitioner in Writ Petition No. 26394 of 1991, allowed on 16.03.2000 vide judgment Sheel Kumar Mishra Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Mishra and others, 2000 1 ARC 551. This Court in paras 15 and 16 of the judgment directed as under: "15. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 24.07.1991 declaring the vacancy is hereby quashed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall consider the matter afresh keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with law. 16. The Rent Control and Eviction officer had passed the order of release after the accommodation was treated as vacant. In case it is finally held that there was no vacancy, the order of release passed on 6.8.1991 shall be treated as quashed, but if it is held that there was vacancy, the release order passed in favour of respondent No. 2 shall remain operative."
(3.) Since the order declaring vacancy passed on 24.07.1991 was quashed by this Court, the RCEO accordingly was required to reconsider this question. Pursuant thereto the RCEO has passed a fresh order on 11.01.2005 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) reiterating his stand that there is a vacancy in the accommodation in question and accordingly declaring the same and it is this order which has given cause of action to the present writ petition.;