Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 17th October 2005, passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi, allowing SCC Revision No. 192 of 2004, filed by respondent No. 2 and setting aside order dated 19.11.2004 passed by/Small Causes Court in Execution Case No. 4 of 1987. The facts in brief giving rise to the present writ petition may be summarized as under:
(2.) THE dispute relates to house No. 208 -C/3 Jhokan Bagh, Civil Lines, Jhansi. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, namely Smt. Kamla Devi, Smt. Usha Agrawal, Snit. Anjali Agrawal and one Sri Babu Lal Garg, father of petitioner (now deceased), claimed to be owners and landlord of the house in dispute. Earlier, one Ramesh Chandra Agrawal was tenant in the aforesaid house. Petitioner's father (Late) Babu Lal instituted SCC suit No. 14 of 1983, seeking ejectment of the then tenant Sri Ramesh Chandra Agrawal. The parties entered into a compromise as a result whereof, the suit was decreed, vide a compromise decree 4.10.1985. The erstwhile tenant Ramesh Chandra Agrawal, it was alleged, did not honour compromise decree and committed breach, by handing over possession of disputed house to respondent No. 2, compelling petitioner's father to institute Execution Case No. 4 of 1987. Respondent No. 2, Puran Chandra Agrawal filed objection in the aforesaid execution proceedings, The case set up by him was that as per compromise decree, outgoing tenant Ramesh Chandra Agrawal was to vacate the premises within one year, i.e. by 4.10.1986. He informed Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") that he is going to vacate the premises by 28.8.1986. Proceeding on the aforesaid information, RCEO notified vacancy on 13.9.1986, pursuant whereto, certain applications, seeking allotment were filed which included application of respondent No. 2 (Pooran Chandra Agrawal) also. RCEO passed an order dated 5.12.1986, allotting the house in question to respondent No. 2 and rejected release application of petitioner landlord.
(3.) ORDER dated 5.12.1986 was challenged in revision No. 315 of 1986 which was allowed and the order of RCEO was set aside by Additional District Judge, Jhansi vide judgment dated 9.4.1987, remanding the matter to RCEO, for fresh hearing, though declaration of vacancy by RCEO was upheld. Revisional Court took the view that prospective allottee has no right to contest release application of landlord and such application would be considered by RCEO independently.;