Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 286 (ALL)

SANJAY KEDIA v. DISTRICT JUDGE GONDA

2008-02-06

O.P.SRIVASTAVA

body2008
O. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31st May, 1995 passed by the District Judge, Gonda, whereby the application of Praful Kumar Rai for allotment of the premises in question was rejected and the application of the petitioner/landlord for release of accommodation was allowed. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows : (i) Polin Bihari Vishwas was admittedly the tenant in the premises in question. He died leaving behind Smt. Suraj Bala Vishwas (widow), prakash Narain Vishwas alias Prabhash Kumar (son) and Smt. Pratima Vishwas (unmarried daughter ). Smt. Pratima was afterwards married to Praful Kumar Rai. After the death of Polin Bihari vishwas, Smt. Suraj Bala Vishwas and Prakash Narain Vishwas alias Prabhash Kumar got constructed their house separately and shifted to that house. The application of the petitioners/landlord for release of the premises under section 16 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, was filed by the petitioners/landlord for release of the premises. Prior to the moving of the said application, Praful Kumar Vishwas had already made an application for allotment of the said premises in his name. The said application was contested by the petitioners/landlord. The application for release of the accommodation filed by the petitioners/landlord was also contested by Praful Kumar Rai against whom the said application was filed. The prescribed authority allowed the application of the petitioner for release and rejected the application of praful Kumar Rai for allotment. (ii) Praful Kumar Rai did not file any revision against the order of the prescribed authority and also did not agitate the matter before any other forum. However, Smt. Suraj Bala Vishwas, Prakash Narain Vishwas and Smt. Pratima Vishwas who were not parties to any of the above proceedings preferred a revision before the District Judge, Gonda against the order of the prescribed authority. It may be noted that praful Kumar Rai was not impleaded as party in either of the said revisions. Learned District Judge, Gonda upon consideration of the arguments advanced before him, allowed both the revisions. Aggrieved of the said judgment and order of learned District Judge this writ petition has been filed. ( 3 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Learned District Judge, Gonda upon consideration of the arguments advanced before him, allowed both the revisions. Aggrieved of the said judgment and order of learned District Judge this writ petition has been filed. ( 3 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) AT the outset it may be pointed out again that as stated above Praful kumar Rai did not prefer any revision against any of the two orders of the prescribed authority. Furthermore, the strangers to the proceedings before the prescribed authority filed the revision without even impleading Praful Kumar rai who had applied for allotment and against whom release application was filed but the learned Revisional Court failed to take note of this fact and did not consider the maintainability of the revision which was necessary before dealing with the revisions on merit. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, Smt. Pratima Vishwas was unmarried daughter of the tenant, Polin Bihari Vishwas and was residing also in the house when Polin bihari Vishwas died. Therefore, since she also comes within the definition of the family under section 3 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, she also inherited tenancy on the death of the main tenant along with her brother and mother. However, she was later on married to Praful Kumar Rai but it is not clear from the judgments of any of the two Courts below whether she continued to live in the house even after marriage or she went to matrimonial home. ( 6 ) IN this regard the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners/landlord is that she went to the matrimonial home after marriage but as submitted on behalf of the opposite party/smt. Pratima Vishwas, she continued to live in the house even after marriage, as a tenant. However, the fact remains that this aspect was also not dealt with by any of the two Courts below. It is also not clear whether there was any pleading before the Court in this regard or not. ( 7 ) IN view of the above the writ petition is allowed. ( 8 ) THE judgment and order dated 31. 5. However, the fact remains that this aspect was also not dealt with by any of the two Courts below. It is also not clear whether there was any pleading before the Court in this regard or not. ( 7 ) IN view of the above the writ petition is allowed. ( 8 ) THE judgment and order dated 31. 5. 1995 passed by the learned District judge, Gonda is quashed and the matter is sent back to the District Judge, Gonda who will consider the matter again in the light of the observations made here-inabove and decide the revisions afresh. It is further clarified that it will be open to the parties to the proceedings to raise arguments on any other relevant point as they deem proper for the consideration of the Revisional Court. ( 9 ) THERE shall be no dispossession from premises in question until the disposal of the revision. The parties shall bear their own costs. ( 10 ) THE parties shall appear before District Judge, Gonda on 11th March, 2008. Since the matter is pending since long the District Judge will try to dispose of the matter expeditiously say within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Petition Allowed. .