- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri V. K. Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S. Shekhar for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) PLEADINGS have been exchanged and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. Challenge in this writ petition has been made to the order dated 3-4-2006 passed by the Revisional Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to accept additional evidence on record. The facts giving rise to the dispute are as follows: (a) The dispute relates to property No. 3/50 which is a five storied building commonly known Bharatpur House situate in Kandhari District Agra and belongs to Bharatpur Royal Family Religious and Ceremonial Trust which is stated to be a religious trust. The petitioner by means of a registered lease deed dated 10- 2-1989 took the premises in dispute on lease for occupation of its members. The petitioner was given rights by lessor to demolish whole or part of the above property and reconstruct and use in the way it likes. (b) The ground floor of the said building was in possession of the District Planning Officer, Agra as a tenant. The tenant - District Planning Officer, Agra (subsequently redesignated as Chief Development Officer, Agra) vacated the premises in dispute on 17-11-1997. On an application moved by the District Supply Officer, Agra for allotment of the premises vacated by erstwhile tenant, proceedings for allotment were started and the premises in dispute was allotted in the name of District Supply Officer, Agra vide order dated 29-1-1998. The petitioner moved an application dated 19-7-1999 for review of the allotment order dated 29-1-1998. The said application of the petitioner was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra on 13-1-2000. The District Supply Officer, Agra challenged the said order in revision which was also dismissed on 5-8-2000. Writ Petition No. 43774 of 2000 filed by the District Supply Officer, Agra was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11-5-2001. The operative portion of the judgment of this Court dated 11-5-2001 reads as under: "the petition, is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petition has been dismissed only for the reason that the vacancy was declared without notice to the landlord. Therefore, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer may again take steps for declaration of vacancy and allotment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the landlord. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. " (c) Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by means of applications under Section 16 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the 'act') for release in his favour and under Section 16 (5) (b) of the Act for being put in possession of the building since the allotment order passed in favour of the District Supply Officer was cancelled. The said applications moved by the petitioner remained pending for long forcing the petitioner to approach this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 29377 of 2001 which was disposed of vide order dated 8-8-2001 with a direction to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra to dispose of the applications expeditiously. Even thereafter, the applications remained pending and the petitioner again approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 3748 of 2002 seeking a direction that he may be put in possession under Section 16 (5) (b) of the Act. Notices were issued and the respondents were asked to file counter-affidavit. Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 24- 4- 2002 on an application moved by the petitioner. The matter still remained pending and a number of dates were fixed forcing the petitioner to again approach this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 18753 of 2003 seeking a direction to dispose of the applications expeditiously. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 1-5-2003 with a direction to decide the applications within four months. Thereafter, two application filed by the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (b) and under Section 16 (5) (b) of the Act were dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 26-8-2003. The petitioner challenged the order in revision.
(3.) DURING the pendency of revision, the respondent No. 2 District Supply Officer, Agra moved another application dated 27-7-2005 through the Collector, Agra before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer with a prayer that the finding/observation in the order dated 26-8-2003 that there is no dispute regarding the vacancy be deleted. Respondent No. 1 entertained the said application and issued notices to the parties. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 66529 of 2005. In response to the notices issued an affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent that the application has been withdrawn. This Court while dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the grievance does not survive directed that no further application on the same facts and for the same relief shall be entertained and the Revisional Court was directed to decide both the revisions pending before it expeditiously. The petitioner thereafter moved an application dated 17-12-2004 before the Revisional Court to bring on record some additional evidence. The Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 3-4- 2006 has rejected the said application against which the present writ petition has been filed. The respondent No. 1 has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act on the ground that though the petitioner has stated in his release application that he wants to demolish the existing construction and raise new construction for its member but the provisions of Rule 17 have not been complied inasmuch as no evidence has been led by the petitioner to establish that the building requires demolition, nor it has filed any estimate of expenditure over the proposed demolition and new construction or that it has the financial capacity for the proposed demolition and new construction. Application filed by the petitioner under Section 16 (5) (b) of the Act was dismissed on the ground that since the release application has been rejected and the proceedings for allotment of the premises in dispute are to be undertaken as such there is no justification to put back the petitioner in possession. During the pendency of revision, the petitioner moved an application for accepting documents in the form of lease deed of the building, estimated expenditure over the proposed demolition and new construction etc. The Revisional Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that evidence is being brought on record to fill up lacuna and to cure the defect.;