Manoj Misra, J. - (1.)Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Saurabh Srivastava for the petitioner; Sri H.R. Mishra, learned senior counsel assisted by Raghuvir Agarwal for the landlord-respondents and perused the record.
(2.)The brief facts of the present case are as follows : By order dated 21st Aug., 1989, a shop was declared vacant and a date was fixed for consideration of the release prayer of the landlord. The release application of the landlord-respondents was rejected vide order dated 8th Sept., 1989, passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by considering affidavit and objection submitted by one Rajendra Kumar, a prospective allottee. In one paragraph, without recording any cogent reason, the stand taken by the landlord that the building in dispute, of which the accommodation in suit was a part, had come to the share of the landlord by way of a family settlement was discarded and by taking into consideration certain assessment rolls of Nagar Mahapalika indicating that there were other properties as well with the landlord, the release application was rejected. Three days thereafter, without even giving prescribed time to the landlord-respondents to file a revision, under Sec. 18 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, against the rejection of their release application, the present petitioner was allotted the premises vide order dated 11th Sept., 1989. The allotment order also did not fix any rent, which was required to be paid by the allottee.
(3.)Challenging the order dated 8th Sept., 1989, the landlord-respondents filed Rent Revision No.145 of 1989 before the Additional District Judge, Court No.17, Kanpur Nagar. Another Rent Revision No.156 of 1989 was filed against the order of allotment dated 11th Sept., 1989. Both the revisions came to be allowed vide impugned order dated 3rd Feb., 2017.