K.L. Sharma, J. - (1.) These writ petitions arise out of the same facts and circumstances between the same parties and involve common questions to be considered and decided. Therefore, both the writ petitions have been heard jointly and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) Writ petition No. 88 (R/C) of 1992 has been directed against the judgment and order 12-2-1992 passed by the opposite party No. 11 in the Rent Revision No. 316 of 1979, whereby H the revision was allowed and the allotment order in favour of the petitioners in respect of the premises was cancelled.
(3.) Admittedly the opposite party No. 3 is landlady of house No. 126/52 situated at Bisheshwar Nath Road, Oaiserbagh, Lucknow, and the shop in question is a part of the said building. One Sri P. S. Wadhva, the opposite party No. 4 was the original tenant in the shop and carrying on home business, but he closed the business and shifted his business to some other place One Sri Mohd. Yemin moved an application for allotment of the shop in his name and also obtained possession of the shop The Rent Control Inspector made a report about the vacancy of the shop which was notified on 18-9-79 by the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No. 4 filed an objection which was rejected on the ground of delay. The shop was allotted to Mohd. Yamin by allotment order dated 28-11-79. The opposites parties No. 3 and 4 filed review application against the allotment order before the opposite party No. 2 who rejected both the review applications. Then the opposite party No.3 filed a revision before the learned District Judge, Lucknow which was registered as Rent Revision No. 316 of 1979 on the ground that the building having been constructed in the year 1974 is out of the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and the impugned allotment order being illegal was liable to be cancelled. The learned Judge after hearing the parties held that the building in question was constructed in 1974 and was exempt under sub-section (2) of Section 2 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and consequently the revision was allowed and the allotment order was cancelled. After the decision in this Rent Revision, the opposite party No. 3 filed an application under Section 18(3) of the Act for delivery of possession of the shop to her. This writ petition has, therefore, been filed for quashing of the impugned judgment dated 12-2-92 contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition and for prohibiting the opposite party No. 2 from considering the application for delivery of possession.;