RASHID JAMAL Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER AND ANR.
LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-273
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 27,2007

Rashid Jamal Appellant
VERSUS
Rent Control and Eviction Officer and Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The dispute pertains to shop and godown situated at premises No. 39/32, Media Bazar, Kanpur Nagar. Sri Munnoo Lal and Smt. Kamla Devi were the owners of the accommodation in dispute, which was earlier under the tenancy of Sri J.N. Dubey, who was carrying on business from the said premises.
(2.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.2.2001 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under section 16(4) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 in case No, 10/01 filed against the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 29.4.2000 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 36/91. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the premises in dispute fell vacant as Sri J.N. Dubey erstwhile tenant left the accommodation. The petitioner moved an application for allotment on 5.12.1979, which was registered as case No. 487. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer called for the report of Rent Control Inspector, which was submitted on 6.12.1979 which is said to have been published on 2.12.1979 on the notice board. Allotment order dated 22.12.1974 was passed thereafter by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar in favour of the petitioner and it is alleged that the petitioner took possession on 24.12.1979 of the said accommodation.
(3.) IT is submitted that against allotment order no application was filed within prescribed time either by the landlord or by the erstwhile tenant. After about two years the erstwhile landlord moved an application under section 16 sub -section 5 of the Act for recalled of the allotment order dated 22.12.1979. It is alleged that after the aforesaid application was moved erstwhile landlord did not press his petition and it the petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 2.3.1984.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.