- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER is daughter of Respondent No. 2 Mohan Singh. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 namely Banwari Lal and Murari Lal are the landlords. Mohan Singh Respondent No. 2 himself initiated proceedings for allotment in respect of property in dispute under Sections 12 and 16 Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of Case No. 61 of 2001 alleging that it was vacant. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), Varanasi declared the property in dispute to be vacant through order dated 21. 2. 2005. The allotment application was in respect of four rooms on the ground floor of house No. D-38/125 Hauj Katora Dashaswamegh, Varanasi. Rent Control Inspector had reported that several rooms in the building on ground and first floors were in occupation of applicant Mohan Singh. Before RCI it was stated on behalf of landlord that property in dispute was a Guest House belonging to the landlord and Mohan Singh was Manager of the Guest House and after closure of the Guest House Mohan Singh was continuing in possession. On the next visit of RCI Mohan Singh stated that on the four rooms on the ground floor there was dispute since 1969 and since 1981 the landlords had opened a Guest House and had made him Manager and had given two rooms on second floor as Manager's room; and that in 1983 when the Guest House was closed he took two rooms on the second story also on rent. Thereafter on 3. 10. 2001 Mohan Singh filed an application for getting his allotment application dismissed as not pressed. However, on 19. 11. 2001 he filed second application for getting the not pressed application dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter landlords filed detailed objections before R. C. andeo. Landlord stated that they had purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 16. 2. 1978 and thereafter Guest House was established in the said building. It was further stated that Mohan Singh was appointed as paid Manager of the Guest House and given one room on the ground floor in connection with his job. It was further stated that thereafter Mohan Singh illegally occupied one more room on the ground floor and a kitchen and two rooms and one store on the second story. Landlords also filed release application. Thereafter several sons and daughters of Mohan Singh including the petitioner also filed allotment applications. Thereafter property in dispute was released in favour of landlord-respondents on 7. 3. 2005. Thereafter Mohan Singh filed revision being rent Revision No. 23 of 2005. District Judge, Varanasi through order dated 15. 3. 2005 stayed the operation of release order. Thereafter petitioner daughter of Mohan Singh also filed RC Revision No. 47 of 2005. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has filed the revision only against vacancy declaration order. Thereafter both the revisions were consolidated. Mohan Singh filed Writ Petition No. 9274 of 2007 against consolidation order which was dismissed on 27. 7. 2007. Thereafter petitioner filed an application for implead-ment in the revision filed by her father Mohan Singh. The said application was rejected by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Varanasi on 21. 7. 2007. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. I do not find least error in the impugned order hence writ petition is dismissed. Revisional Court has said that petitioner's status is in the nature of prospective allottee. If the allegation of learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's revision is directed only against vacancy declaration order is correct then while deciding revision finally Revisional Court should decide as to whether revision against vacancy declaration order is maintainable?
(3.) IT is quite clear that Mohan Singh and his family members including petitioner are delaying the proceedings and disposal of the revisions. There is absolutely no conflict of interest in between Mohan Singh and his sons and daughters or other relations. Both the revisions have already been consolidated. It is quite clear that revision filed by the petitioner and this writ petition are nothing but aimed at delaying disposal of revisions. The Revisional Court should be not have granted un-conditional stay order to Mohan Singh or any of his family members.;