Jagdish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record so also the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. Heard parties' counsel. In the peculiar circumstances of the case and with the consent of the parties' counsel, this petition is disposed of finally.
(2.) IT is not disputed that two orders of allotment were made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in respect of different portions of premises No. 293/1, Bagh Kesho Das, district Muzaffarnagar. The portions of the building were specified not only in the orders but also in the map which formed part of the record and on the basis of the allotment orders, possession was also delivered to the petitioner of the portion which was allotted to her. The petitioner then applied before the R.C. & E.O. for rectification stating therein that a mistake in the order of allotment had occurred which required ratification. The said application was objected to by the contesting respondent. The R.C. & E.O. accepted the petitioner's contention and modified the original allotment order by his order dated 16 -6 -1994. The present contesting respondent then filed revision before the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar which was allowed on 5 -9 -1996 and the subsequent order of R.C. & E.O. modifying the original order of allotment was set aside. Against the order of the revisional court, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 23096/96 before this Court but the same was also dismissed by the order dated 23 -7 -1996 and the order of the revisional court setting aside the subsequent order of R.C. & E.O. was upheld. It further appears that when the respondent applied to the R.C. & E.O. for delivery of possession of the portion of the building which was covered by the allotment order made in his favour, the R.C. & E.O. had issued form 'D'. It may also be mentioned here that while allowing the revision, the revisional court had also directed the present petitioner to hand over that portion of the house which was already allotted to the present contesting respondent by the previous order of allotment before if was modified and rectified by the R.C. & E.O. and if the petitioner failed to do so within a period of thirty days, the contesting respondent was given the opportunity to get the possession of the said portion delivered to him in accordance with law. It further appears that when possession was not being delivered to the present contesting respondent, he approached this Court and filed writ petition No. 31649 of 1997. This Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the District Magistrate and R.C. & E.O. to hand over the possession of the disputed portion in the light of the decision of the revisional court dated 5 -7 -1996 passed in revision No. 25 of 1994 which order was also confirmed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and it was further directed that the aforesaid orders shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of the order was produced before the said respondents.
(3.) IT further appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid orders, the R.C. & E.O. has issued form 'D' for delivery of possession of the accommodation comprising in the original order of allotment dated 19 -8 -1993 made in favour of respondent No. 2. The present petitioner filed objections against form 'D' before R.C. & E.O. as well as revision before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar which has been numbered as 3/98 which is undisputedly still pending decision before the court below. It also appears that the petitioner obtained an ex -parte order from the revisional court whereby the execution of form 'D' was stayed -Later, on the application of respondent No. 2 the lower revisional court vacated the said stay order ex -parte. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said order should not have been vacated in the absence of the petitioner or his counsel. It is further urged by the petitioner's counsel that the order passed by the lower revisional court earlier, had already been complied with. The counsel for the respondent, however, disputes this assertion of the petitioner. Since revision is already pending before the court below, it may not be proper for this court to make any observation either way on the respective contentions of the parties' counsel on this point. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction that the revision pending before the Addl. District Judge (Sri S.N. Verma) shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously either by the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar himself or by any Addl. District Judge (other than Sri S.N. Verma), to whom the case is transferred by the District Judge. It is further ordered that execution of form 'D' during the pendency of the revision shall not remain stayed. However, it is made clear that the execution thereof shall be confined only to the portion covered by the order of allotment dated 19 -8 -1993 made in favour of respondent No. 2 and shall be in consonance with the order dated 5 -7 -1996 passed by the revisional court as affirmed by this court in writ petition No. 23096 of 1996. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from any portion of the house which has been allotted to her and is shown in the order of allotment dated 19 -8 -1993 made in her favour by R.C. & E.O., (sic). A copy of the order may be issued to the counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within two days.;