S. C. Mathnr, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directtd against order for delivery of possession of immoveable property, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), Lucknow, opposite party no. 1, under section 18 (3) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972). The dispute in the petition pertains to first floor of house No. 109/16, Model House, police station Aminabad, Lucknow.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY the above house previously belonged to Sri Mauji Ram Gupta. It appears that the house had been let out by Sri Mauji Ram Gupta When the tenant vacated the accommodation, Sri Mauji Ram Gupta applied for release of the said house. Meanwhile the petitioner and others applied for allotment thereof. By order dated 25th February, 1976 only the ground-floor of the house was released in favour of Sri Mauji Ram Gupta and his application for release in respect of first floor was rejected. The first floor was thereafter allotted in favour of the petitioner by order dated 23rd July, 1976. She obtained possession over the allotted accommodation on 25th July, 1976. The allotment in favour of the petitioner was challenged before the District Judge by Rama Kant Srivastava. an applicant for allotment. While the revision was pending Mauji Ram Gupta sold the entire house to Pawa through sale-deed dated 18th July, 1977. The revision was allowed and allotment order dated 23rd July, 1976 was set-aside and the case was remanded to the Additional District Magistrate who again allotted the accommodation to the petitioner through order dated 4tb January, 1978. This order had been passed without notice to Pawa who applied for review of the order which was allowed and the allotment order was cancelled by order dated 14th December, 1981. By this order not only the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, the first floor of the house was released in favour of Sri Pawa. Against this order the petitioner preferred revision before the learned District Judge. The learned Ilnd Additional District Judge, before whom the revision came up for hearing, allowed the same by judgment and order dated 18th January, 1983 and set-aside the order dated 14th December, 1981. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Pawa preferred writ petition in this court which was allowed by me by judgment and order dated 20th January, 1984. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows :- "...Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 18-1-1983 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Lucknow, Annexure 1, is hereby quashed. The allotting authority will reconsider the opposite party no. 3's application for allotment after giving notice to the petitioner...." The petitioner challenged the order of this Court Before their lordships of the Supreme Court. The challenge however failed. A copy of the judgment and order passed by their lordships on 5th November, 1986 is on record. It appears that after the order of this Court Sri Pawa applied to the Additional District Magistrate under section 18 (3) of the Act for being put in possession of the first floor by eviction of the petitioner. His plea was that since the allotment order passed in favour of the petitioner has been set-aside, the petitioner was not entitled to remain in possession of the accommodation in question. Copy of this application was not served upon the petitioner. All the same she appeared before the Additional District Magistrate on 1st February, 1984. From his order dated 1st February 1984, which is on record, it appears that the Additional District Magistrate heard both the sides and came to the conclusion that more detailed hearing was required. He accordingly adjourned the case to 7th February, 1984. Before final orders could be passed on Pawa's application, the petitioner approached their lordships of the Supreme Court and obtained stay order on 1st March, 1984 copy of which was filed before the Additional District Magistrate on 5th March, 1984 In view of the interim order passed by their lordships, further proceedings before the Additional District Magistrate, in pursuance of the judgment of this Court as also in pursuance of the application under section 18 (3), became stayed. After their lordships dismissed petitioner's appeal, Sri Pawa moved another application under section 18 (3) before the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies) on 7th November, 1986. This application, it appears, was directed to be put up on 10th November, 1986. Till 21st November, 1986 no orders for petitioner's eviction had been passed and accordingly Sri Pawa moved yet another application on 21st November, 1986 seeking delivery of possession. This application was filed before the District Magistrate who endorsed the same to Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies) for disposal. On this application the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies) passed order for petitioner's eviction on 22nd November, 1986-annexure 4. So far as the application dated 7th November, 1986 is concerned it appears that Additional District Magistrate had directed the same to be put up on 10th November, 1986. However, there was no progress on this application. It is this order dated 22nd November, 1986 which is under challenge in the present petition.
(3.) THE impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds : 1. THE order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no notice was issued to the petitioner of the application under section 18 (3) filed by the opposite party ; 2. THE order is in violation of the earlier order passed by the A. D. M. on 1st February, 1984 whereby he had directed that both the parties shall be heard ; 3. THE impugned order is violative of the judgment and order passed by this Court in the writ petition of Sri Pawa ; and, 4. Section 18 (3) of the Act has no application to the facts of the present case. I shall take up the last ground first. Fourth Ground :;