VAIBHAV SINGH Vs. THIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
LAWS(ALL)-1997-12-131
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 15,1997

Vaibhav Singh Appellant
VERSUS
Third Additional District Judge Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SHITLA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri A.N. Sinha has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 3.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the accommodation in question, hereinafter referred to as accommodation only, was in the tenancy of Sri R.D. Singh. The petitioner is son of Sri R.D. Singh. The mother of the petitioner got an accommodation constructed somewhere in the same City. Therefore, under the provisions of the Act there is deemed vacancy. An application for allotment was filed by Sri R.K. Tripathi. Application for release was also filed by the landlord. The present petitioner also moved an application under Rule 10(6) proviso (b) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner contended in his application that he was living in the accommodation in question for the last 30 years. His wife is also there who is looking after the affairs of Anganbari and other family members are also residing there; therefore, he may be allotted the accommodation in question. The matter was considered by the R.C. and E.O. and ultimately reached upto the stage of revision. The Revisional Court allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the R.C. and E.O. with an option by the landlord to nominate a person who is fit to occupy the accommodation in question as tenant. The petitioner did not challenge the order of the Revisional Court and the option was given to indicate a nominee. Ultimately, when the matter reached before the R.C. and E.O., the landlord nominated Sri R.K. Tripathi a prospective allottee as tenant. An order was passed in favour of Sri R.K. Tripathi and allotment was made.
(3.) THE petitioner challenged this order by way of revision. The Revisional Court also dismissed the revision on the ground that the application under Rule 10(6) proviso (b) was not maintainable as the petitioner has not said anywhere that he was a separate member of the family of the erstwhile tenant R.D. Singh. The petitioner has challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;


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