- (1.) SHISHIR Kumar, J. This writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:- 1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the revisional authority to decide Civil Revision No. 29 of 2001 (Bengali Prasad Verma Vs. Om Prakash Kannaudia and others) and Civil Revision No. 30 of 2001 (Bengali Prasad Verma Vs. Minhaj Ahamad and others) pending before Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court no. 9, Deoria, within the time as prescribes by this Hon'ble Court;
(2.) ISSUE a writ, order or direction to reject the 2nd allotment application moved by heirs of Shri Mushtaq Ahmad and Radha Krishna (Annexure Nos. 12 and 13 to this writ petition ). Issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of petitioner and To award the cost of the petition. " This case is a very chequered history. An application for release has been allowed and the tenant aggrieved by order made various applications before the Court and a writ petition was also filed before this Court as Writ Petition No. 7064 of 1981. Though, this writ petition was filed only for the relief to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1. 4. 1981 and further issue any writ or direction in the interest of petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper of the present case. The impugned order dated 1. 4. 1981 was regarding payment of damages, which was claimed by erstwhile tenant as damages. Rs. 50/- was awarded. Aggrieved by that order, respondents-tenants have approached this Court. It appears that on application filed by petitioner in that writ petition being respondent in the present writ petition, this Court passes an order on 3rd February, 1999 directing the Superintendent of police to put petitioner back in possession over the shop in question within a week. On the basis of this order, respondents -tenants were put in possession forcibly by the Superintendent of Police as directed. On an application made by petitioner, bringing the fact before the Court that in the writ petition there was no relief and there was no direction to this effect but under some misconception the order of giving possession has been passed. This Court after considering the submissions of petitioner has passed a detailed order on the application on 13. 7. 1999 which is follows:- "the petitioners, however, were to file an application for allotment under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act. The petitioners have died. It is necessary for their heirs to file an application for allotment under section 24 (2) of the Act and if so advised, with an application to condone the delay in filing the application. In case they do not file any application or no allotment order is passed in their favour, they will be liable to re-deliver the possession of the shops. In case they file an application for allotment within three weeks from today, the District Magistrate shall pass an appropriate order keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with law within two months. The application is accordingly disposed of. " On the basis of direction issued by this Court, Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order condoning the delay only on the ground that as High Court has condoned the delay, therefore, delay in filing the application for allotment under Section 24 Sub Clause 2 is condoned and application for allotment to be considered on merits. Petitioner aggrieved by aforesaid order, field a revision. Revisional Court allowed the revision and set aside the order condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and matter has been remanded back to Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Respondents filed a writ petition before this Court as Writ Petition No. 38758 of 2003. The aforesaid writ petition as well as Writ Petition No. 7064 of 1981 were clubbed together and was decided by a common order dated 30. 11. 2004. The writ petition of 2003 was allowed and matter was remanded back to revisional court to decide as a fresh. In view of decision, Hon'ble High Court has said that there is no necessity to pass any order in the writ petition of 1981. Now, the matter is pending before the revisional court and it is not being decided and about four years have been passed. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner submits that question regarding making application for allotment would be considered by the Court as it is a clear abuse of process of law. The second application for allotment is not maintainable as earlier application for allotment has already been abated due to death of original tenant and no substitution has been filed. Further submission has been made that no cogent reason has been explained regarding filing application after a very long time. The effect of the interim order passed by this Court is that respondents-tenants have taken forcibly possession of the accommodation without payment of rent and from 1999 up-till-date no rent is being paid to petitioner. As writ petition filed by respondents is of 1981 has already been dismissed, therefore, if any order during pendency of writ petition has been passed that will be treated to be ineffective order and cannot be acted upon. Further a relief which was not sought in the writ petition cannot be granted in case writ petition has been dismissed. After considering the submission made on behalf of petitioner and from the record it is clear that in the writ petition of 1981 an order was challenged regarding payment of compensation for not providing the accommodation in spite of completion of construction. But during pendency of 1981 writ petition, various orders have been passed and Rent Control and Eviction Officer by virtue of direction issued by this Court has entertained the application for allotment and application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was allowed and revisional court has reverse the same. Against the order passed by revisional court, this Court in 2003 allowed the writ petition and matter has been remanded to the revisional authority. In such circumstances, the contention of Sri Srivastava cannot be accepted that the orders passed in earlier writ petition, as writ petition has already been dismissed, therefore, any order during pendency of writ petition passed cannot be taken into consideration and that will be treated to be a non est order. It is clear from the record that this Court has directed to entertain the application on merits in accordance with law, therefore, this Court has given a jurisdiction to Rent, Control and Eviction Officer to entertain the application and on that basis revision was filed by petitioner. This Court has allowed the writ petition and matter has been remanded back to revisional authority for consideration on merits. Even on the basis of interim order in 1981 writ petition, the respondents-tenants were put in possession to shop in dispute and they are still in possession. Therefore, it cannot be said that orders during pendency of writ petition can be treated to be an order of without jurisdiction in case the writ petition is dismissed and no relief was sought. Apart from entering into aforesaid controversy as the revision on the basis of remand order passed by this Court is still pending, therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate that revisional court may decide the revision after hearing both the parties taking into consideration the fact regarding maintainability of second application for allotment and will pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. .;