- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27-8- 2002 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar respondent No. 1 seeking relief of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the release order dated 5-3-1992, order dated 2-6-1997 by which the review application has been dismissed as well as the impugned order dated 27-8-2002 dismissing the revision.
(2.) FACTS of the case, in brief are that the petitioner claims himself to be an old tenant of a portion of house No. 88/478 (old No. 88/465) on the first floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 63/- per month which was purchased by the father of the present landlord- respondent No. 3 in 1960. The accommodation in the tenancy of the petitioner consists of two rooms, verandah, court-yard, kitchen, latrine and bath-room. It is alleged that the petitioner later on came to know that the respondent No. 3-landlord had moved an application dated 7-2- 1991 under Section 16 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for release of the disputed accommodation. The respondent No. 3-landlord had moved the application dated 7-2-1991 under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act aforesaid alleging that the premises in dispute was in occupation of seven tenants, namely, S/sri Shanker Lal, Hasa Nand, Rewa Chandra the present petitioner, Nathu Lal, Kanhaiya Lal, Santosh Kumar, Manohar Lal and Trilok Chandra. In his application, the landlord stated that the tenants, including the petitioner had vacated the accommodation under their tenancy. The revisional Court has held that the revision was not maintainable by observing that looking to the facts of the case and declaration of vacancy and order of release having been passed the revision has no merits as the Counsel for the revisionist was not ready to argue the revision and the vacancy was declared and accommodation had already been released.
(3.) THE petitioner filed supplementary affidavit. THE rejoinder affidavit was also filed and the case was taken up on 31-10-2002 when Counsel for the respondent-landlord gave undertaking not to evict the petitioner. THE undertaking given by the Counsel for the respondent continued having been extended from time to time till 16-4-2003 as per last order dated 3-4-2003. However, the case was dismissed in default on 28-4-2003. THE Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that he contacted Sri R. N. Bhalla, Counsel for the respondent at 3. 15 P. M. on that day itself who requested to take up the case on next day. Ultimately, the restoration application No. 76393 of 2003 was taken up on 30-4-2004 the order of dismissal of the petition was recalled on 30-4-2003. THE case was directed to be listed in the next cause list. It appears that one Ishrat Quayum had also moved an application dated 11-2-1991 for allotment of the portion of the premises, in dispute and it was on this allotment application as well as release application filed by the landlord that the Rent Control Inspector submitted his report about vacancy.;