Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.8.2004 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure 1 to writ petition) and further prayer that proceeding in pursuance thereof in Case No. 185 of 1997 be remained stayed.
(2.) The facts arising out of writ petition are that petitioner was inducted as tenant in the house in question by one Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, who is the owner and landlord, on monthly rent of Rs. 105/-. Respondent No. 2 set up one Munna Lal and got allotment application filed in respect of house in question. A report was called for from Rent Control Inspector and after inspection of house in question, submitted a report that petitioner is tenant in the house in question for last three years. Notice was issued to parties. Petitioner filed an objection against allotment application dated 28.8.1978. Sri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal owner of house and landlord, who is son of respondent No. 2 filed his own affidavit stating that petitioner has been inducted by him in the month of January 1976 and he is paying rent including water tax and house tax. Respondent No. 2 did not file any counter- affidavit in opposition of affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Agarwal. A registered sale-deed was executed by Rajesh Kumar Agarwal in favour of petitioner on 14.9.1979. Respondent No. 2 filed an application for declaration of vacancy of the house in question. An objection was filed by petitioner that he has purchased this house by a registered sale-deed, therefore, question of vacancy does not arise. This fact was admitted by Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, Respondent No. 2. After going through the material on record passed an order to the effect that there is no question of vacancy of house in question and petitioner is residing in the house since before 5.7.1976 with the consent of landlord Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, therefore, he will be treated to be lawful tenant. Respondent No. 3 did not challenge the said order dated 25.10.1982 and that has become final against him.
(3.) On 23.11.1982, respondent No. 2 filed a review application under Section 16(5) of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the order dated 25.10.1982. Petitioner filed an objection against the review application stating therein that review application is not maintainable under Section 16(5) of the Act. Respondent No. 2 filed his objection against the objection dated 22.3.1983 and prayed for declaring the house in question as vacant and same may be notified for allotment. Respondent No. 2 only to linger the case, again filed an affidavit on 7.4.1989 which was also replied by petitioner but proceeding was going on and subsequently after hearing both the parties, on 6.8.2004, respondent No. 1 has allowed the review application after about 22 years and set aside the order dated 25.10.1982. It has also been brought to the notice that respondent No. 2 has also filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 14.9.1979 executed by Rajesh Kumar Agarwal. The said suit was dismissed in default and an application under Order 9, Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code was also filed. The said application was dismissed and First Appeal From Order No. 1065 of 1990 was filed before this Court but subsequently same has been transferred to District Judge, Varanasi due to change in pecuniary 0jurisdiction and First Appeal From Order was dismissed as abated by Vth Addl. District Judge on 15.1.2001. A writ petition has been filed and writ petition was allowed and delay was condoned in filing of substitution application and Appellate Court was directed to decide the appeal on merits.;