- (1.) Heard Shri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Subodh Kumar for respondent no.3. This case has a chequered history. This writ petition was heard on 6.1.2014. An objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has not availed the statutory alternative remedy of revision and, therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained. On this plea, the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 6.1.2014. The petitioner had filed Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No. 11191 of 2014 before the Apex Court,which was disposed of on 21.4.2015 with the directions as follows:- "Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the relevant material. The High Court has refused to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner on account of availability of alternative remedies.While it is correct that alternative/statutory remedies were available to the petitioner to challenge the orders which were impugned before the High Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case details of which need not be recited, we are of the view that the High Court should be requested to dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner on merits. We order accordingly and request the High Court to dispose of CM Writ Petition No. 19709 of 2008 on merits at the earliest. The special leave petition is disposed of in the above terms." Though the Apex court has directed that the writ petition be decided on merit and the order of dismissal on the ground of alternative remedy was set aside, however,the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the statutory remedy of revision against the impugned order has not been availed by the petitioner. This argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is not acceptable in view of the direction of the Apex Court to decide the writ petition on merit, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover the settled legal position is that in case a writ petition is entertained and an interim order has been passed or the writ petition is pending for a long time, it should not be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The present writ petition can not be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy after approximately 13 to 14 years of the pendency. Reference be made to Delhi Prakashan Vitran(P) Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Court, Ghaziabad and others, 2004 3 AWC 2351 ; Panchoo Ram Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2004 3 AWC 2358 and L.Hirday Narain Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly, 1971 AIR(SC) 33 .
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the landlord challenging the orders dated 25.5.1998, 29.6.1998 and the order dated 7.7.1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Shahjanpur. The landlord's case is that the premises in question namely House no. 281 situated in Mohalla Sadar Bazar, District Shahjanpur was never allotted or rented out to any one prior to 30.10.1990. There is no proof of any allotment order on record, when the petitioner was outside the town respondent no.3 Devendra Pal Singh had grabbed the house as he yields tremendous influence over the local authorities. As soon as the petitioner come to know this fact, he moved applications before the police authorities, however, nothing has been done. With a view to get his occupation legalised, the opposite party no.3 moved an application for allotment dated 26.7.1990. In the said application, he mentioned his residential address of the disputed house.
(3.) The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. The report dated 30.7.1990 of the Rent Control Inspector states that there occurred vacancy in the house in question as the then sitting tenant Dharmendra Kumar Dixit had purchased his own house and had shifted therein. The report further reveled that Hari Pal son of Babu Ram met with the Rent Control Inspector and stated that he had occupied the house for about two months as a tenant and had been inducted by the landlord. Hari Pal further averred that he was working in the Cooperative Department at Shahjahanpur. The petitioner filed objection to the allotment application dated 9.10.1990. It was categorically stated therein that during his visits to Shahjahanpur for professional purpose he stays in the house in question. It was further stated that he never gave the house on rent to Dharmendra Kumar Dixit as alleged in the report. With respect to HariPal, it was stated that the house was illegally occupied by Devendra Pal Singh after breaking the lock in July 1980, and possession was handed over to Haripal, it was never given on rent to him. Three persons namely,Devendra Pal Singh, Dharmendra Kumar Dixit and Haripal had conspired to illegally grab the house. They had indulged in such illegal activities of grabbing the locked houses, in the District. Respondent no.3 Devendra Pal Singh had filed his affidavit in reply and the affidavits of Dharmendra Dixit and one Akshay Vikram Singh in support of his assertion. They had pleaded that earlier Dharmendra Kumar Dixit was the tenant @ Rs. 50 per month. After this house was vacated by him, Hari Pal started living with the permission of the landlord. By order dated 30.10.1990, the report of the Rent Control Inspector dated 30.7.1990 was accepted and the house in question was allotted to Devendra Pal Singh rejecting the objections of the landlord. The landlord was directed to handover the vacant possession of the house to the allottee. This order was challenged in revision on the ground that a composite order of declaration of vacancy and allotment relying upon the affidavits of the allottee, Dharmendra Kumar Dixit and Akshay Vikram Singh cannot be sustained. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had assumed vacancy, no opportunity has been given to the landlord to rebut these affidavits. So far as the allotment is concerned, the contention of the landlord was that the allotment application has not been examined on merits and the order was passed with a predetermined mind. The applicant Devendra Pal Singh being unauthorised occupant of the house had no right to maintain the allotment application, the application was liable to be rejected on this ground alone. It is admitted case of the allottee Devendra Pal Singh that he had occupied the house before the declaration of vacancy. The case of the applicant in the allotment application was that he had been permitted to look after house by the landlord and as such he had carried out whitewash and repairs but thereafter the landlord had demanded high rent, and therefore, a dispute arose and he was forced to file the allotment application. The contention of the petitioner was that the nature of the occupation of Devendra Pal Singh was not given due consideration before passing the allotment order. The revision was allowed on 25.7.1992 and the order of vacancy and allotment was set aside. The matter was remanded back to decide afresh on the question of vacancy as also allotment to the court below.;