S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties on recall application, substitution application as well as on merits of the writ petition. Arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties were heard in this writ petition on 25.4.2005 and judgment was reserved. Order sheet of the said date is quoted below: Shri V.B. Khare, Shri A.K. Shukla and Shri C.P. Dwivedi learned Counsel have filed vakalatnama on behalf of contesting respondent. Heard learned Counsel for parties. Judgment reserved.
(2.) THEREAFTER , judgment was delivered on 2.5.2005. Through the said judgment writ petition was allowed. However, tenant -respondent was granted 9 months time to vacate provided that within one month he filed undertaking that within the period of 9 months he would willingly vacate and hand over possession of the property in dispute to the landlord -petitioner. The three learned Counsel, whose names were mentioned in the order sheet dated 25.4.2005 had filed their vakalatnama on the said date on behalf of Satish Kumar. Unfortunately, on the said date it could not be pointed out that the original tenant -respondent No. 2 Satanand Prasad Verma had died. Sri Tarun Verma, learned Counsel who was representing the original tenant had filed an abatement application supported by affidavit of Satish Kumar Verma, one of the sons of original tenant on 29.1.2004 stating therein that respondent No. 2 had died. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a substitution application seeking substitution of Satish Kumar Verma was filed in February, 1997. However, the said application was not available in the record. After decision of the writ petition, Satish Kumar Verma, filed undertaking in terms of judgment dated 2.5.2005. Thereafter, recall application was filed on 20.7.2005 on behalf of Shrimati Maya Devi, wife of original tenant No. 2 and Sanjay Kumar, Ajay Kumar and Vijay Kumar, the other three sons of original tenant -respondent No. 2 (the fourth one being Satish Kumar). Through the said order it was prayed that order dated 2.5.2005 might be recalled. The said application was supported by an affidavit of Maya Devi. She stated that she was not aware of the order. In reply to the recall application a counter -affidavit was filed by the landlord. A supplementary counter -affidavit was filed by the tenant. Landlord also filed substitution application dated 23.3.2006. In the affidavit filed in reply to recall application it was stated that in February, 1997 application for substitution of Satish Kumar Verma was filed, which was not on record. Duplicate copy of the said substitution application was annexed as Annexure C.A. "2". In the fresh substitution application it was prayed that the widow and four sons of original tenant -respondent No. 2 might be substituted. Sri K.M. Tripathi, learned Counsel along with recall application filed vakalatnama on behalf of four legal representatives. Fifth legal representative Satish Kumar Verma is already represented by three Advocates, as mentioned above. In view of the this, the order dated 2.5.2005 allowing the writ petition is recalled. Substitution application dated 23.3.2005 is allowed after condoning the delay in filing the same.
(3.) THIS is landlord's writ petition. Original landlady, since deceased, and survived by legal representatives, filed release application against original tenant -respondent No. 2 in the form of P.A. Case No. 79 of 1988 under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Prescribed Authority/First Additional Civil Judge, Gorakhpur allowed the release application on 3.2.1990. Against the said order Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1990 was filed. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur allowed the appeal on 27.8.1999, hence this writ petition.;