S.P.Srivastava - (1.) FEELING aggrieved by an order passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, holding the premises in dispute to be vacant and available for allotment/release in the proceedings under section 16 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and releasing the same in favour of the landlord, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of writ prtition No. 1921 of 1991 filed on 23-1-1991 seeking redress praying for the quashing of the said order. Pending admission of this writ petition notices were issued to the respondent landlord who thereafter put in appearance and filed a. counter affidavit. The petitioner then filed a rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto.
(2.) IT appears that before filing the writ petition No. 1921 of 1991 in this Court, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 28-12-1990 impugned in the aforesaid writ petition by means of a revision under section 18 of the Act. Since, the hearing of the aforesaid revision was being delayed, the landlord respondent filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 78 of 1991 on 13-8-1991, praying for a direction requiring the Revising Authority to finally decide the revision expeditiously. This writ petition was connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1921 of 1991. During the pendency of this writ petition, the revision was decided on 3-3-1994 where under it was dismissed as not maintainable. IT was thereafter that writ petition No. 7939 of 1994 was filed challenging the revisional order as well as the order dated 21-12-1990 where under the vacancy in respect of the accommodation in dispute were notified and the order dated 28-12-1990 whereby holding the premises in dispute to be vacant the Rent Control and Eviction Officer proceeded to consider the application filed by the landlord seeking release of the accommodation in dispute in his favour and granted this relief. On 9-3-1994, this Court taking into consideration the controversy raised by the petitioner found it appropriate to connect writ petition No. 7939 of 1994 with writ petition No. 1921 of 1991 and it was directed that both the writ petitions be heard and disposed of together. As has already been indicated above, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had passed the order holding the premises in dispute to be vacant on 28-12-1990 and under the same order, the premises in dispute has been released in favour of the landlord It is not disputed that before filing the writ petition indicated above, the petitioner had filed a revision under section 18 of the Act. challenging the order dated 28-12-1990. In the writ petition No. 7939 of 1994 besides challenging the order passed by the Revising Authority dated 3-3-1994, the petitioner challenged the orders passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 21-12-1990 and 28-12-1990 also and thus, the second writ petition filed by the petitioner was also for the same relief which had been claimed in the first writ petition filed by him viz. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1921 of 1991.
(3.) IN the facts and circumstances indicated above all the three writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. I have heard Sri A. N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. L. Grover, learned counsel representing the landlord respondent and have carefully perused the record.;