Poonam Srivastav, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner and counsel for contesting respondent.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. As agreed between counsels for respective parties, writ petition is being decided finally. The instant writ petition has been preferred against an order dated 16.9.2005, passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Varanasi, in Rent Control Revision No. 66 of 2005. An application for allotment was moved by respondent No. 2 for a shop before Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supply)/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi, on 18.6.2004 which is subject-matter of dispute. The application was registered as Case No. 28 of 2004, Aditya Bhardwaj v. Harish Chandra Vishwakarma. Since shop was vacant, landlord/petitioner filed a release application under Section 16 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 18.1.2005.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 was found to be an unauthorized occupant. Consequently, Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared vacancy on 30.3.2005. Objection to release application was preferred by respondent No. 2 on 28.2.2005 along with an affidavit dated 13.6.2005. Landlord/petitioner filed a counter-affidavit and also objection to the affidavit dated 13.6.2005 filed by respondent No. 2. Objection of respondent No. 2 was allowed and release application of petitioner was rejected by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi, vide judgment and order dated 19.7.2005. Revision was preferred by petitioner before Additional District Judge challenging the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi. Respondent No. 2 filed an application for impleadment in Rent Control Revision No. 66 of 2005. Impleadment application was objected by petitioner but objection was rejected by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Varanasi, permitting respondent No. 2 to be impleaded as a party by means of the impugned order.;