Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.4.2009 (Annexure 28 of the writ petition) and order dated 21.4.2001 (Annexure 21 to writ petition).
(2.) The facts arising out of writ petition are that an application was filed on 9.1.1979 under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 by one Sri Pratap Narain Jaiswal against occupants Sri Radha Kishan and Sri Mushtaq Ahmad for releasing of the said accommodation before the prescribed authority. A compromise was entered on the same day between the parties and according to the terms and condition of compromise deed, it was stipulated that after the construction is made, tenant will be given a shop. The said premises according to agreement was demolished and re- constructed in the year 1985. During the period of construction, respondents moved an application before prescribed authority for payment of compensation from the landlord due to delay in construction in accordance with the condition of compromise. They were not satisfied of the order passed by Court below, as such, a writ petition was filed as Writ Petition No. 7064 of 1981 (Radha Kishan and another v. Pratap Narain and another) for quashing the order dated 1.4.1981. An application was moved in the year 1985 by Sri Radha Kishan and Shri Mushtaq Ahmad for restoring them back in possession. During pendency of writ petition, an application dated 14.8.1986 was filed for restoring the possession to them. An application for allotment under Section 24(2) of Act. No. 13 of 1972 was also moved. Shri Radha Kishan expired on 24.04.1989 while Shri Mushtaq Ahmad expired on 22.5.1995. No substitution application was filed substituting the heirs of these two persons. An objection was taken to the application dated 14.8.1986. An order dated 5.7.1988 was passed in which a finding has been recorded that building has been constructed in the month of May, 1986. No application for substitution was filed. It was on 4.8.1995, an application was filed and it was allowed. An order was passed on 3.2.1999 to give possession to heirs of Sri Radha Kishan and Sri Mushtaq Ahmad. It is to be noted that aforesaid premises was sold in favour of petitioner in the year 1998.
(3.) It has been stated that material facts have been concealed by heirs of both the persons regarding an alternative accommodation located adjacent to the premises in dispute as they were running a big shop. Petitioner coming to know regarding aforesaid orders, as he was dispossessed, a recall application was filed recalling the order dated 3.2.1999 and this Hon'ble Court passed a detailed order acknowledging the fact that earlier order was passed in some misconception. In the order dated 13.7.1999, this Court was pleased to permit the heirs of Sri Radha Kishan and Mushtaq Ahmad to move an application for allotment explaining the delay, if any, and therefore, second application was moved by heirs of Shri Mushtaq Ahmad and Shri Radha Kishan. An application for allotment moved by respondents was supported by delay condonation application. The same was allowed on 21.4.2001 treating that the Hon'ble Court in its order dated 13.7.1999 has held that delay is condoned. A revision was filed against the said order that was allowed setting aside the order dated 24.1.2001. Respondents filed a writ petition, same was allowed by this Court on 30.11.2004 and matter was remanded to revisional Court and on the basis of remand, revisional Court decided the same against petitioner vide its order dated 27.4.2009, hence the present writ petition has been filed.;