S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.M. Rai, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent-landlords who has appeared through caveat. After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties to some extent court proposed that writ petition could be disposed of at the admission/fresh stage provided that learned Counsel for the respondent agreed for final disposal of the writ petition without filing counter affidavit. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents agreed.
(2.) Against order releasing the property in dispute under Section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in favour of landlords-respondents passed by R.C. & E.O., petitioner has filed revision being Rent Revision No. 34 of 2007 which at present is pending before Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Kanpur Nagar. Through order dated 22.8.2007 learned A.D.J. rejected the stay application. The prayer made through this writ petition is that until disposal of the revision petitioner's dispossession may be stayed.
(3.) According to the learned Counsel for the respondent in January 2007 petitioner handed over possession of the shop in dispute to one Gyanendra Shukla hence vacancy was declared and shop was released in favour of the landlord respondent. Learned Counsel for the respondent further states that vacancy was declared after service of notice through affixation.;