High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Usman Gani Khan v. Addl. Dist Judge And Session Judge And Others - WRIT - A No. 63489 of 2005  RD-AH 3909 (3 October 2005)
Court No. 51
Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 63489 of 2005
Usman Gani Khan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . Petitioner
Additional District Judge, Court No. 1,
Allahabad and others. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents.
Petitioner is occupant of a building regarding which landlord-respondents intimated Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 22.5.1998 that the previous tenant Rizwan Ullah had vacated the same and it was vacant. Landlord-respondent also filed release application under section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter described as the "Act"). Petitioner filed objections stating therein that he was the tenant of the accommodation in question since June, 1976 and was regularly paying rent but without any receipt. It was further stated by the petitioner that since June 1998 landlord had refused to accept the rent, hence it was being deposited under section 30of the Act. The case was registered as Case No. 30 of 1998 Shambhu Chopra vs. Rent Control and Eviction officer on the file of Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ Ist. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad by order dated 15.12.1998 declared the accommodation to be vacant. Thereafter R.C.E.O. by order-dated 3.8.2001 released the said accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondents. Thereafter petitioner filed R.C.Revison No. 571 of 2001 against order of release-dated 3.8.2001. Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, dismissed the revision on 2.9.2005. Hence this writ petition.
Against the order declaring vacancy dated 15.12.1998 petitioner had already filed Writ Petition No. 12575 of 1999, which was dismissed on 25.5.1999. After confirmation of vacancy declaration order by this Court, it was not open to the petitioner to challenge the release order. It has been held in Talib Hasan vs. A.D.J.(1986 (1) A.R.C. 1 (A.P.) and R.N.Sharma vs. S.Gaur (A.I.R.2002 S.C. 2204) that prospective allottee can not challenge release order. Similarly, unauthorized occupant can also not challenge release order. Lon this aspect of the matter the Revisional Court has considered several authorities.
Accordingly, there is absolutely no error in the judgment passed by the Revisional Court holding that the petitioner has no right to challenge release order.
Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition. It is, therefore, dismissed.
However, petitioner is granted six months time to vacate the premises provided that within one month from today he files an undertaking before the R.C.E.O. to the effect that on or before the expiry of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlords-respondent. For this period of six months, petitioner shall pay damages for use and occupation to the landlord @ Rs. 1500/- per month. A total amount of Rs. 9,000/- for six months shall be deposited by the petitioner before the R.E.C.O. for immediate payment to the landlord-respondents. In case of default in compliance with either of these conditions petitioner shall be evicted through process of the Court after one month.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.