Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1870 (ALL)

Rajendra Sharma v. Rajesh Singh

2015-07-10

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, occupant of the premises in question has been declared unauthorised occupant and the vacancy under Section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. While contesting the proceedings, the petitioner has taken a stand that vide notification dated 17.2.1983, the house in question namely Ahata No. 119/252, Darshan Purwa, Kanpur Nagar has been acquired by the State Government and included in "Malin Basti". Request has been made to summon relevant papers from the Kanpur Development Authority to establish this fact. 3. The application moved by the tenant for impleading the Kanpur Development Authority party to the revision was rejected. An application with the affidavit dated 26.3.2014 filed by the Kanpur Development Authority with the prayer to file the documents establishing its possession of the premises in question was rejected as not maintainable after perusal of the documents on record. 4. From the documents on record, it was found by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (RCEO) that with regard to House No. 119/252 (new no. 119/511) Shiv Narain Singh Ahata, Darshan Purwa, Kanpur Nagar, the competent authority vide order dated 28.4.1995 had released the house in question from acquisition and inclusion in "Malin Basti". Nothing has been brought on record to show that the order dated 24.4.1985 passed by the competent authority has been cancelled at any point of time. 5. It was, therefore, opined that the house in question is not covered by the provisions of "Malin Basti Act, 1962" and the provisions of U.P. Act, 13 of 1972 are applicable. The vacancy was declared on 9.5.2015. 6. It appears that the petitioner has filed a revision against the order of declaration of vacancy. The revision is pending since 2004. An application under Section 34 (1) (a) of the Rent Control Act was filed by the petitioner on 16.3.2015 with the prayer to allow the petitioner to bring certain documents on record to establish that the house in question was acquired to be included in "Malin Basti" under a notification of the State Government. This application was rejected by the revisional court and it was found that the same plea was raised by the petitioner before the lower court and was part of the record of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 7. This application was rejected by the revisional court and it was found that the same plea was raised by the petitioner before the lower court and was part of the record of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 7. The lower authority has already considered the matter and recorded a categorical finding of fact that these documents are not relevant for the controversy and further the application was dismissed as misconceived. 8. It is apparent from the record that the court below has recorded a categorical finding of fact with regard to the house in question on the objections raised by the petitioner after appreciation of the documents on record. In revision, the petitioner can assail the order of the RCEO on the grounds available to him therein. The application filed under Section 34 of the Rent Control Act is nothing but an effort to protract the proceedings. 9. The revision is pending for more than a period of 10 years. It is, therefore, provided that the revisional court shall proceed with the revision in a time bound manner and shall make an effort to decide it as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. 10. With the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed.