K.C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 21.5.1977, and that of the District Judge dated 21 5.1977. This case has a chequered history and is illustrative as to how can a party abuse the process of the court.
(2.) The dispute in the present case is with respect to house No. D-47/104, Mohalla Ramapura, Varanasi. Admittedly, this house belonged to Kamla Ranjan Roy, respondent No. 3. A portion of this house was allotted to Sri Kishan Lal, who was posted as Munsif at Varanasi. Sri Kishan Lal vacated the house and delivered possession of the same to the Senior Vice President of Rekha Kanya Mahavidyalaya. In August 1968, the respondent No. 3 filed an application for the release of the premises on the ground that as Sri Kishan Lal had vacated the premises, the same may be released in his favour. During the pendency of the aforesaid application, Sri S.N. Pandey, Senior Vice President of Rekha Kanya Mahavidyalaya filed an application for allotment of the premises in favour of the School. The landlord also moved another application for the release of the same on September 8, 1969. On January 16, 1970 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of the respondent No. 3, for the release, and on the next day, namely, on 17.1.1970 allotted the same to the Rekha Kanya Mahavidyalya. The order of allotment was challenged by the respondent No. 3, in this Court by means of a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 5.12 1971. The learned Single Judge held that the possession of the house had been obtained by the petitioner in calculation with Sri Kishan Lal, the then Munsif surreptitiously. The finding of the learned Single Judge was affirmed in appeal by a Division Bench.
(3.) Consequent upon the order passed by this Court, the matter went back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. By the time the matter was received by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Act No. 1II of 1947 was repealed and was replaced by U. P. Act No. XII1 of 1972. By the order dated 30.3.1973, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that in view of the judgment of the High Court mentioned above, the occupation of premises by the petitioner was illegal and unauthorised. In this view of the matter, he held that the premises would be deemed to be vacant. As also observed that in case respondent No. 3 wanted the same to be released in his favour, he should file a normal application for the said purpose. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, appearance was put in on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and an application for release, which had been filed by him under U.P. Act No. III of 1947, was reiterated for the purpose of release under the Present Act. Curiously enough, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of the respondent No. 3 and again allotted the premises to the petitioner.;