Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2546 (ALL)

Rehana v. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar

2014-08-20

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is a landlord. The premises in dispute was declared to be vacant on 5.12.2013. The vacancy order was affirmed by the High Court in writ petition no. 70898 of 2013 vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2013. Thereafter, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer considered the release application of the petitioner landlord and the same was allowed vide order dated 14.2.2014. 3. Against the said order respondent no. 2 has filed a Rent Revision No. 10 of 2014. The revision has been entertained and the order of release has been kept in abeyance for the time being vide order dated 31.5.2014. This interim order has been assailed by the petitioner by filing this writ petition. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prospective allottee has no right to maintain a revision and therefore the District Judge has committed an error of jurisdiction in entertaining the same and in passing the interim order. 5. The petitioner may prima-facie be correct in submitting that the prospective allottee has no right to challenge the order of release by filing a revision under Section 18 of the Act as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in Talib Husain and another Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Nanital and others AIR 1986 Alld. 196 (FB) 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 (SC), but the petitioner can appear before the revisional court and raise the issue of maintainability of the revision in the light of the above decisions. 6. In view of the above alternative available to the petitioner, there is no justification to entertain the writ petition at this stage. 7. Needless to say that if such an object is raised, the court below will consider the same before proceeding on the merits of the revision. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the court below ie. the District Judge to proceed and decide the above revision in accordance with law considering its maintainability as expeditiously as possible by curtailing all unnecessary adjournments and fixing short dates in quick succession.