Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2235 (ALL)

Ram Devi v. A. D. J. , Court No. 14 Kanpur Nagar

2014-07-28

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Ram Autar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.N. Sinha, who has appeared for respondent No.3. 2. The premises in dispute consisting of a house, a Varandha and a Angan was declared to be vacant and finally ordered to be released in favour of the landlord respondent No.3. 3. The aforesaid orders have been affirmed by the revisional court. 4. Aggrieved by the above, petitioner, who was in occupation of the same, has come in this writ petition contending that the vacancy was wrongly been declared and that the release? application was not to be allowed. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the father of petitioner's husband was the original tenant and on his death the tenancy had devolved jointly upon all his sons including the petitioner's husband. Therefore, she is not an unauthorised occupant. 6. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 31.3.06 has considered the case of the petitioner and has found that the house in dispute was under-tenancy of one Devi Deen at a rent of Rs.6.25 per month as per the quinquennial assessment of the years 1973-78. He had died in 1983 and his son and the family migrated to their native village. The petitioner or her husband Kallu are not the family members the said Devi Deen. 7. The petitioner could not produce any evidence to show that the father of her husband Kallu was the tenant of the premises in dispute. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner is not holding any order of allotment of the premises in dispute. 9. In view of aforesaid findings returned by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer which are not proved to be perverse in any manner, I find no illegality in declaring the premises in dispute to be vacant. 10. The contention that certain evidence adduced by the petitioner specifically the rent receipts were not considered is misconceived as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer considered the same but refused to place reliance upon them as only photocopies of the receipt were filed which were inadmissible in evidence. 11. Once the vacancy is declared and the petitioner is held to be an unauthorised occupant she has no right or locus standi to object to the release application or to file any objection to the release application. 11. Once the vacancy is declared and the petitioner is held to be an unauthorised occupant she has no right or locus standi to object to the release application or to file any objection to the release application. She has even no right to be heard in the matter was release and to challenge the same as has been held by the Full Bench of this court in the case of Talib Husain and another Vs. 1st Addl. District Judge, Nainital and others ARC 1986 (1) which has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Sonkar Vs. Incharge District Judge and others 1995 (2) ARC 1. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner has already been evicted from the premises in dispute on 25.1.08 and the possession has been delivered to the respondent No.3 pursuant to the order of the release. 13. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, in view of Mohd. Hussain Vs. Ishrat Hussain 1986 (2) ARC 116 the writ has lost all its efficacy and the petitioner is not entitle to any relief in the petition. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.