Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel Shri A.K. Trivedi for the petitioner and Shri Ashok Srivastava for the respondents. Raising a short controversy the present petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 4th of November, 2006 whereby the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner before him though on merits but without hearing her.
(2.) THE dispute relates to a residential house No. 111/78 situate at Ashok Nagar, Kanpur. Petitioner claims that she is owner and landlady of the said house. It was in occupation of one Dr. Vinod Kumar Mishra, respondent No. 3 herein on monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/ -. A dispute arose in between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 namely Gaurav Chaturvedi with regard to ownership and title of the dispute house. Shri Gaurav Chaturvedi, respondent No. 2 herein claims that he has acquired the ownership right by virtue of Will dated 26th of November, 2006 executed by his grandfather Shri N.C. Chaturvedi. Petitioner on the other hand contends that she being the widow of Shri N.C. Chaturvedi is entitled to succeed the property under Hindu Succession Act. It is also admitted between the parties that title dispute is subject -matter of O.S. Nos. 1103 of 2000 and 833 of 2002 between the parties pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur. It has also come on the record that respondent No. 2 got the said accommodation related in his favour, without arraying petitioner as a party, by the order dated 5th of September, 2005. To recall the said release order an application under section 16(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed which was rejected by the order dated 28th of February, 1996 which was subject -matter of the revision before the Court below.
(3.) IN view of the fact that the parties are related to each other and the fact that petitioner is a widow, it seems desirable and expedient that opportunity of hearing be afforded to her before taking a final decision in this regard in the revision. The learned Judge has proceeded to decide the revision on the footing that title dispute cannot be looked into by the Courts/authorities constituted under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. But it has also failed to consider that respondent No. 2, Gaurav Chaturvedi, is also claiming on the basis of Will. If that is so, there appears no justification as to why Gaurav Chaturvedi filed application for release of the disputed accommodation unless Will in his favour is proved. However, it is not necessary for this Court to enter into the said controversy and it is for the Re visional Court to take into consideration the above facts along with the other facts available on record.;