LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-65

DOROTHEY NATHENIAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

Decided On October 03, 2005
DOROTHEY NATHENIAL Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT JUDGE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the wife of respondent No, 4. Respondent No. 3 is the landlord of the accommodation in dispute. Respondent No. 3 filed an application for release of the house in dispute on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against respondent No. 4. The release application was registered as Rent Case No. 18 of 1988 on the file of the Prescribed Authority/ Additional J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar. In the release application it was stated that respondent No. 4 was the tenant of the accommodation in dispute. In the release application respondent No. 4 entered into compromise with landlord respondent No. 3 and admitted the bona. fide need of the landlord. Respondent No. 4 also admitted that he had alternative accommodation, In view of the compromise in between respondents No. 3 and 4, release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 23.9.1988. Thereafter, petitioner, who is wife of respondent No. 4, filed restoration application asserting therein that she was the tenant and further that her husband respondent No. 4 was a drunkard and taking advantage of the said bad habit of her husband, landlord respondent No. 3 got the agreement signed by him. It was further stated that she was not aware of the collusive order dated 23.9.1988. until filing of restoration application which was filed on 24.10.1988. The said application was dismissed in default on 15.12.1989. For recalling the said order petitioner filed another restoration application on 24.1.1990. The said application was rejected by Prescribed Authority on 7.3.90. The revision filed against the said order was dismissed as not maintainable on 14.3.1990, hence this, writ petition.

(2.) Aggrieved by the orders dated 7,3.1990 and 14.3.1990, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) So far as the order passed by the revisional court dismissing the revision as not maintainable is concerned, there is no fault therein. The revision was clearly not maintainable.