Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) THE crucial and relevant events and the issues raised in the present writ petition are condensed within 24 hours ; between 28 November, 1985 and 29 November, 1985. THE controversy in the writ petition can best be appreciated by not ignoring the submissions made on behalf of the contesting respondents at the close of arguments at the Bar. It was contended on behalf of the contesting respondent, that notwithstanding the fact that he had taken the law in his own hands, yet the petitioner must be relegated to the alternate remedy in persuing the revision filed before the District Judge, Allahabad and accordingly the writ petition be dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable for reasons that an alternate remedy had yet to be exhausted. This Court, regard being had to the circumstances of the present case, noticed the submissions but negatived the request.
(2.) THE present writ petition invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek redress against an alleged auction of what today is commonly known as house-grabbing. There is a property situate at 3, Tashkant Road, Allahabad. There are several buildings on this plot. The property is in the hands of six brothers, who are co-lessees. These are Messrs Behari Lal, Firozi Lal, Roshan Lal, Madan Lal, Ratan Lal and Pyare Lal, who owned the plots no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively at the aforesaid address. The petitioner is Madan Lal, who owns plot no. 4. There was a proceeding for allotment of the premises of Behari Lal aforesaid, who owns plot no. 1. But, apparently the contesting respondent walked into and occupied the premises owned by the petitioner, Madan Lal. The proceedings for allotment were under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the rules framed thereunder, hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner broadly speaking is two fold. Firstly, it was submitted that the allotment proceedings are vitiated as they are not in accordance with the procedure established by law and are without jurisdiction from its inception. Secondly, it is contended that admittedly the allotment proceedings in which the contesting respondent was participating were in respect to the premises owned by Behari Lal, these are matrers of record, but the respondent no. 3 walked into the premises of Madan Lal, the petitioner and as such he is a trespasser.
(3.) ON behalf of the respondent no. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the contesting respondent), the arguments of the petitioner were countered by two submissions. Firstly that the petition is misconceived, as against an order of allotment a revision lies before the District Judge and this remedy has already been initiated by the petitioner and the revision is pending. We will deal with this argument subsequently in detail. The second submission is that even according to the entries on the record of the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad the property has not been partitioned and is recorded jointly in the names of six persons mentioned above, and in the writ petition. The premises, in effect, not being identifiable, it is contended, saves the allotment order even though it may not be specific in reference to the identity of accommodation. In rejoinder learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sudhir Chandra Agarwal, raised the arguments that his client had filed a revision before the District Judge and also obtained a stay order by which the operation of the allotment order against the premises in question was stayed and put in abeyance. But despite the stay order of the District Judge the contesting respondent occupied the premises. He submitted, that there is nothing left in the revision as the contesting respondent has taken the law in his own hands and has defeated the stay order granted by the District Judge. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no confusion about the identity of the premises, which are not joint even on records of the Nagar Mahapalika and that the contesting respondent has materially suppressed facts by presenting to the Court only half the information and suppressing the rest.;