High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
R.S. Dubey v. D.J. - WRIT - A No. 25168 of 1994  RD-AH 13010 (4 August 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.25168 of 1994
Ram Swarup Dubey
District Judge, Etawah and others
Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.
Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the respondent no.3.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3 and on behalf of respondent no.4.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 6.5.1993 passed by respondent no.1 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner u/s 18 of U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972 has been dismissed holding that the order of Rent Control & Eviction Officer passed upon an application u/s 16(1)(b) of the Act made by the petitioner did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.
The facts of the case as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner are that shop no.393 mohalla Ghatia Azmat Ali, Etawah is under the ownership of the petitioner and it was under the tenancy of Asharfi Lal who was running a Halwai shop therein. Asharfi Lal was unmarried and he died as such on 28.7.1980. The petitioner made the application for release of the shop claiming it tobe required for occupation by his son and his grand son who are unsettled in life. Report was submitted by Rent Control Inspector who found the respondent nos.3 and 4 tobe in occupation of the
shop. The petitioner filed his objection against the report of Rent Control Inspector. The respondent nos.3 and 4 contested the application and the Rent Control & Eviction Officer recorded a finding that the shop in question was not vacant and that it was in the possession of respondent nos.3 and 4 who claim tobe legal representatives of the deceased tenant. The claim set up by the respondent nos.3 and 4 was on the basis of a will executed by the deceased tenant. It was found from the record that respondent nos.3 and 4 were in occupation of the shop and the earlier application u/s 21 of the Act made by the petitioner had already been dismissed and the appeal u/s 22 was also dismissed. The revisional court has found that the Rent Control & Eviction Officer has considered the material on record and has recorded the finding of fact which do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Consequently, the said revision has also been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that occupation of respondent nos.3 and 4 was unauthorized and, therefore, it did not create any right in the tenancy in their favour. He also contended that the impugned judgment and order are based on misappreciation and misreading of the evidence. A review application was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the revisional court and the said application has been dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable in view of the provision of section 16(5) of the Act. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner this court does not find any error in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below nor any illegality or irregularity can be found in the judgment of the revisional court.
The writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.