Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who claims himself to be a tenant of a premises bearing Municipal No. 13/80 Gwaltoli, Kanpur Nagar has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order passed by respondent no. 1 (Additional District Magistrate) City, Kanpur Nagar directing issuance of Form-D under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It appears from the facts stated in the writ petition that in respect of the aforesaid premises, an order was passed on 21.2.2013 by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar declaring the premises vacant, followed by order dated 15.4.2013 releasing the same in favour of the second respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed a revision under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, which is stated to be pending. Since there was no stay in the revision filed by the petitioner, consequently, Form-C was issued by respondent no. 1. The petitioner is stated to have challenged the order dated 23.9.2014 passed by respondent no. 1 issuing Form-C by filing Writ Petition No. 33369 of 2015. The said writ petition is stated to have been dismissed for want of prosecution. In the aforesaid background facts, the first respondent after holding that there is no stay against the order declaring vacancy and releasing the premises in favour of the respondent no. 2 has now issued Form-D. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent is neither the owner, nor the landlord of the premises. It is urged that person from whom respondent no. 2 had purchased the property was also not the owner of the property. According to him, the property belongs to a Trust.
(3.) Concededly, in the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order declaring the premises as vacant as well as the release order, there is no stay in favour of the petitioner. Thus, there is no legal embargo in executing the release order by issuing Forms C and D. The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging issuance of form C already stands dismissed. The petitioner has also instituted Original Suit No. 847 of 2015 against respondent no. 2, wherein the trial court has passed an order dated 23.7.2015 clarifying that in case the petitioner is evicted in pursuance of any proceeding undertaken by a court of competent jurisdiction or by any authority there would be no legal embargo in that regard, but the petitioner shall not be dispossessed by the private respondent without adopting the procedure prescribed by law. Thus, even the injunction order which has been issued by the trial court in the suit instituted by the petitioner, does not prevent the enforcement of release order passed by respondent no. 1.;