Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) The present revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 2-5-1985 passed by Sri Tanvir Zaffar Ali, Assistant City Magistrate (I) Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, allotting part of accommodation No. 4/278-B, Chhaya, Vishnupuii, P.S. Kohna, Kanpur, in favour of B.D. Seth, opposite party under Section 16(1) of the Act was filed before the District Judge, Kanpur. The aforesaid writ petition, which was disposed of by me on 18-7-1985 has been remanded back to this Court by an order dated January 13, 1986 with a direction the petition revision pending before the IInd Additional District Judge, Kanpur, may be withdrawn to the High Court and heard along with the Writ petition. Hence both the case i.e. revision and the writ petition are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) The case has a chequered history. One S.N. Gundu Rao was the landlord of the aforesaid accommodation in dispute and Sudhir Seth, Proprietor of M/s. Transfal Electronics Limited was the tenant. Gundu Rao filed Suit No. 32 of 1977 in the Court of the District Judge, Kanpur, for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent which was decreed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur on 21-9-1977. The opposite party tenant M/s. Transtel Electronics Limited feeling aggrieved filed a revision in this Court being Revision No. 2809 of 1977. During the pendency of the said revision Gundu Rao sold the accommodation in question to Kailash Chandra Tandon and Suresh Chandra Tandon through two separate registered sale deeds in the year 1978 who became owners thereof and they were made parties in the said revision in this Court. It appears that thereafter a compromise was arrived at between the parties but ultimately the said compromise was not acted upon. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 17-2-1981 allowed the revision and remanded the case back to the IVth Additional District Judge for deciding the suit afresh in the light of the observations contained in the judgment. After remand the suit was again decreed on 7-4-1984. A revision filed against the aforesaid order was dismissed by this Court against which a special leave petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India which too met the same fate and the decree became final. Thereafter the applicants started execution proceedings in the Court of the IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur in which an objection under 47 CPC was filed which was partly allowed against which a revision filed in this Court was decided in favour of the applicants on 23-5-1985. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the revision in this Court a release application was filed by the applicants before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and it has been alleged that when the applicants made enquires about the said application they came to know that the accommodation in question has been allotted in favour of the opposite party without their knowledge on 2-5-1985. The applicant being aggrieved against the said order of allotment filed the present revision.
(3.) It appears that in pursuance of the allotment order dated 2-5-1985 the opposite party came into possession of the accommodation in question. In the meantime a parwana was issued by the Court in execution proceedings, which, as already stated, were started by the applicants, for delivery of possession to the landlords applicants. Thereupon the opposite party i.e. B.D. Seth filed Writ Petition No. 7480 of 1986 in this Court in which it was alleged that the opposite party (the petitioner) came into possession of the promises in dispute in pursuance of the allotment order dated 2-6-1985 against which a revision (Rent Revision No. 97 of 1985) has been filed which is pending before the District Judge. As already stated, the said writ petition was disposed of by me at the admission stage observing that however it is made clear that in case the allotment order passed in favour of the petitioner has not been set aside so far the petitioner will not be evicted until and unless the allotment order passed in his favour is quashed. In view of the facts involved in the instant case it is hoped that revision filed by the landlord shall be expeditiously disposed by the District Judge, Kanpur.;