- (1.) VIKRAM Nath, J. This writ petition filed by the landlord against the judgment and order dated 6-1-2001 passed by III A. D. J. , Deoria in Rent Control Revision No. 1 of 2000, whereby the order of release passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, dated 6-9-2000, has been set aside and the matter has been remanded for reconsideration.
(2.) THE question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the occupant of the premises in dispute having been declared to be an unauthorized occupant can maintain revision against the order of release passed in favour of the landlord under Section 16 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The dispute relates to house No. 5/368 Sindhi Mill Colony, Deoria of which the petitioner Ram Karan Singh is the owner and landlord. Ram Karan Singh filed an application for release of the premises on the ground that it had become vacant on account of the earlier tenant having left the premises as he had shifted to another district and respondent No. 3 Devata Rai had been illegally inducted into the premises without there being any order of allotment or the consent of the landlord nor was he a family member of the out going tenant Ram Ji Verma. On the said application. Case No. 14 of 1994 was registered in the Court of Rent Control and Eviction Officer Deoria. It was contended by Devta Rai on the ground that he had entered into possession with the permission of landlord and was paying rent to the landlord who had accepted the same and that his possession was prior to the coming of the Act and as such there was no vacancy. It would be worth while to mention here that Devta Rai respondent No. 3 had filed Original Suit No. 538 of 1993 for injunction against the landlord from being dispossessed. The Trial Court after considering the contention of the parties by detailed order rejected the application of interim relief vide order dated 10-7-1998. Against the said order Devta Rai filed a Misc. Appeal which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 74 of 1998. The IV Additional District Judge, Deoria dismissed the appeal holding that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to establish that he was a tenant of the premises in dispute. The contention of the occupant that he was entitled to Section 14 of the Act was also rejected by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The said order became final as they were not challenged any further.
(3.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 6-9-2000 came to the conclusion that Devta Rai respondent No. 3 was unauthorized occupant and directed for release of the premises in favour of the landlord. Against the said order respondent No. 3 filed a revision under Section 18 of the Act, which has been allowed vide judgment dated 6-1-2001 and the matter sent back for reconsideration in the light of Sections 2 (a) and 14 of the Act. Against this order the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard Sri Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shashi Nandan learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents No. 1 and 2.;