CHANDRA DUTT DWIVEDI Vs. VIITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR
LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-602
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 07,2009

CHANDRA DUTT DWIVEDI Appellant
VERSUS
VIITH.ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, KANPUR NAGAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THE dispute in the present writ petition relates to a room, verandah, open court-yard, kitchen and latrine situate on the ground floor of house No. 119/450, Darshanpur, Kanpur Nagar of which the petitioners are indisputably the owners. THE said accommodation was in the tenancy of one Tapsya Charan Mishra who constructed his own house at Panki (Kanpur) and shifted there, without delivering the possession of the accommodation in question to the petitioners on whose behalf Tapasya Charan Mishra was inducted as the tenant. He never informed the petitioner that he is going to vacate the tenanted accommodation.
(2.) IT appears that the respondent No. 3 Shri Shiv Charan Shukla initiated proceedings for allotment of the said accommodation on the ground that Tapasya Charan Mishra has vacated the disputed accommodation and the said accommodation is open for allotment. On the said information, the proceeding for declaration of vacancy was initiated by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer. The accommodation in question was ultimately declared as vacant. The applications for allotment were invited. By the impugned order, the said accommodation has been allotted in favour of the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3, armed with allotment order in his favour, entered into possession of the property in question. The case of the petitioners is that only then, they came to know about the proceedings. As soon as the petitioners came to know about the allotment order in favour of the respondent No. 3, they pre ferred a revision under section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 along with an application for condonation of delay in its filing. The Vllth Additional District Judge, Kanpur by the order dated 14.10.1999 condoned the delay. The Court be low recorded a finding that on perusal of record, it is evident that the land-, lords had no information about the proceedings nor they appeared. They came to know about the allotment order on 10.11.1998 and the revision was filed on 17.11.1998. The revision was taken up for hearing thereafter. By the impugned order dated 5.5.2000, the revision has been dismissed. Challenging the said or der, the present writ petition has been filed. Sri Prateek Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the peti tioners submits that all the proceedings for declaration of vacancy and allot ment are null and void, as they have been conducted and concluded in violation of Rules 8 (2) and 9 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act. However, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not challenging the order declar ing the accommodation in question as vacant, but he confines his arguments with regard to non-compliance of Rule 9 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act. The submission is that no notice, as required, after declaration of vacancy and before allotment, was given by the authority concerned and, as such, the im pugned order of allotment passed in favour of contesting respondent No. 3 is "null and void". He further submits that had the petitioners been aware about the proceedings, they would have applied for its release. Since no opportunity was afforded by the authority concerned, the petitioners have been illegally deprived of their right to apply for release of the disputed accommodation. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No. 3, on the other hand, submits that since release applications has been filed by the petitioners and the petitioners are not challenging the order declaring the accommodation in question as vacant, no interference in the present writ petition is called for. He further submits that the petitioners have already filed an application for re lease, as provided for under section 16 (5) of the Act and as such, the Court should not entertain the present writ petition.'
(3.) CONSIDERED the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Only question mooted in the present writ petition is as to whether a no tice as contemplated under Rule 9 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act, was served on the petitioners of not.;


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