Prakash Krishna - (1.) THIS is second round of litigation in the High Court. Whether petitioners' possession over the disputed premises stands regualrised under Section 14 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as amended on 5th of July, 1976, is the sole question involved in the present writ petition. Background Facts of the Case :
(2.) PREMISES No. 1/4 Nawabganj, Jageshwar Temple Road, Kanpur which consists of two rooms and one chabutra and was being used by the petitioners' father namely Shri Laxminarain Gupta (who died during the pendency of the proceeding and the petitioners have been substituted in his place) for non-residential purposes. Shri Laxmi Narain Gupta came in occupation of the said premises indisputably without any allotment order in the year 1968 on the monthly rent of Rs. 110. One Baikunth Narain applied for allotment of the said accommodation on the ground that the said accommodation is vacant in the eyes of law as Laxmi Narain Gupta is in its occupation without there being an allotment order in his favour. On October 28, 1970, the premises in question was declared vacant by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 7A of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'old Act') and was subsequently on 2.11.1970 allotted to Baikunth Narain. Subsequent thereto the District Magistrate did pass an order under Section 7A (2) of the old Act directing eviction of Laxmi Narain Gupta. Suit No. of 1971 was instituted by Laxmi Narain Gupta in the Court of First Additional Munsif, Kanpur challenging his eviction order passed under Section 7A of the old Act on the ground that the premises in question is post 1951 construction and as such provisions of old Act are not applicable and obtained an injunction order restraining Baikunth Narain to evict Laxmi Narain Gupta. The suit, after contest, was ultimately dismissed on 31st of March, 1975 which was challenged by Laxmi Narain Gupta in Appeal No. 1747 of 1975. The appeal was also dismissed on December 12,1977. Injunction order was also granted by the appellate court and it remained in operation till the final decision of the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal the allottee Baikunth Narain expired on 17th of August, 1975. The civil court found that the building in question is a construction prior to the year 1951 and thus provision of old Act were applicable and Laxmi Narain Gupta could not get benefit of Section 14 of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act). After dismissal of the appeal by the civil court, the landlord Ram Kishore Shukla (who has also died and whose heirs are the respondents No. 2 to 6 herein) filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation. Laxmi Narain Gupta also applied for regularisation of his possession as tenant under Section 14 of the new Act as amended on 5th of July, 1976. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated October 13, 1982, rejected the application of Laxmi Narain Gupta for regularisation of possession on the ground that his objections were already rejected on 23rd of April, 1971 and notice for eviction under Section 7A (2) of old Act was issued earlier. The contention of Laxmi Narain Gupta that Section 14 was amended on 5th of July, 1976 and Baikunth Narain having expired before that date, i.e. on 17th of August, 1975, his possession is liable to be regualrised, was rejected on the ground that ad interim order continued up to December 12, 1977. He was of the view that on 5th of July, 1976 when Section 14 of new Act was amended proceedings for his eviction was pending. After rejecting claim for regularisation, the disputed accommodation was released in favour of the landlord who bona fidely required it to establish his younger son in the business.
(3.) THE above order was subject-matter of challenge in Rent Revision No. 327 of 1982 by Laxmi Narain Gupta before the Additional District Judge, Kanpur who by its judgment and order dated 24th of January, 1983 allowed the revision and restored the matter back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to re-examine the case afresh and give a satisfactory finding on the question : "Whether the petitioner has been in occupation of the accommodation in question as a tenant with the consent of the landlord on relevant date, i.e. 5th of July, 1976." This order was further challenged by the landlord in Writ Petition No. 4752 of 1983, before this Court. The writ petition was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 19th of April, 1988. This was the first round of litigation upto the High Court.;