High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kumari Sonia v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - A No. 20134 of 2007  RD-AH 7297 (20 April 2007)
Court no. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20134 of 2007
Kumari Sonia versus State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 24.7.2006 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur in Rent Control Case No. 48 of 2007, Hardeep Singh Vs. Kamod Jain
The dispute in the present case relates to shop no. 14/1225/4 situated at Mahendra Market Kisanpura, District Saharanpur of which Kamod Kumar Jain son of late Sri Mahendra Lal Jain resident of 13/229 Jaatwan street Saharanpur is the landlord.
The petitioner claims to be legal heirs of deceased tenant and states that she is the tenant of the disputed shop.
The claim of the petitioner appears to be to have no foundation. It is evident from the order dated 3.3.2005 that the petitioner is not the daughter of deceased tenant Sri Ram Swaroop and Smt. Kamla but is an unauthorized occupant of the disputed shop and in fact the deceased tenant died issueless.
The relevant portion of the order dated 3.3.2005 is as under:-
^^fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa dh cgl lquus ,oa Ik=koyh o mDr izkFkZuk Ik= ds v/;;u djus ds Ik'pkr ;g rF; izdk'k esa vk;k fd v/;klh e`rd fdjk;snkj Jh jke Lo#Ik o Jh erh deyk dh iq=h ugha gS cfYd og iz'uxr nqdku esa vukf/kd`r v/;klh dh gSfl;r ls dkfot gS D;ksafd e`rd fdjk;snkj ds dksbZ lUrku ugha Fkh vkSj os vkthou fulUrku jgs rFkk olh;rukek ds vk/kkj ij Hkh dq0 lksfu;k mudh okfjl ugha gksuh ikbZ tkrh gS A ^^
It further appears from the order dated 24.7.2006 that none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press the recall application dated 29.7.2005, hence the Court in the circumstances, rejected the aforesaid recall application and has confirmed the order of declaring vacancy dated 20.4.2005.
From the combined reading of impugned order dated 24.7.2006 read with the order dated 3.3.2005 it is apparent that the petitioner was not the daughter of the deceased tenant but was her niece who was not even living with the tenant. The tenant Sri Ram Swaroop had died issueless and the petitioner in order to harass the landlord had put her lock in the shop in dispute. She was not also appearing in the case and was also not pressing her application which has been noted by the Court in the order dated 24.7.2006. The Court has therefore, rightly noted in the order that when the petitioner was not appearing to press her application dated 29.7.2005, there was no question of recalling of the order declaring vacancy. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 24.7.2006 confirming the order dated 20.4.2005 declaring vacancy in the facts and circumstances of the case.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dated 20.4 .2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.