NISHA KANT RASTOGI Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KANPUR NAGAR AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2007-10-204
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 01,2007

Nisha Kant Rastogi Appellant
VERSUS
Vth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) Shop in dispute, which is situated in Kanpur Nagar was in the tenancy occupation of respondent No. 3, Hira Lal Verma, since deceased and survived by Legal Representatives. On the application of the petitioner shop was declared vacant and it was also allotted to him. Thereafter he also took possession of the shop in dispute. After his dispossession Hira Lal Verma filed review application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for setting aside allotment order dated 1.12.1983. The shop is situated in premises No. 43/186 Chowk Sarrafa, Kanpur. Review application was registered as Case No. 45 of 1985 and was allowed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar through order dated 19.7.1986. Against the said order petitioner filed revision-being Rent Revision No. 92 of 1986. Vth ADJ, Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 5.4.1994 dismissed the revision, hence this writ petition.
(3.) Along with supplementary affidavit dated 21.8.2003, copy of the order sheet of the revision has been annexed. In the order dated 24.11.1993 in the order sheet it is mentioned that revisionist was unduly delaying the disposal of the revision and filing successive frivolous applications and after dismissal of some applications exactly similar applications had been filed subsequently. Thereafter on the order sheet dated 5.4.1994 it is mentioned that some application was rejected on 24.11.1993 and thereafter several dates were fixed for hearing in the revision but it was got adjourned for different reasons. One more application was rejected by the said order. It was further observed that even though respondents had filed written arguments but the revisionist had neither filed written argument nor had advanced oral arguments but got the revision adjourned by filing frivolous applications. The last sentence states that "So I consider it appropriate that this revision should be decided on merits (order dictated). Put up at 4.00 P.M. for judgment.";


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