Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2372 (ALL)

Ram Khilauni v. Vimal Kumar

2016-07-08

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. -- Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is admitted by the landlord that the petitioner is a tenant of the premises in dispute inasmuch as the landlord has filed a suit for his eviction from the said premises by treating him to be tenant and has also applied for release of the premises under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which is only maintainable against the tenant. 3. The petitioner however claims himself not to be the tenant but in possession of the premises in dispute on the basis of an agreement to sell in respect whereof, he has already filed an Original Suit No. 402 of 1992 (Ram Khilauni vs. Vimal Kumar), for specific performance. 4. In this background, the respondent initiated proceedings for declaring the premises in dispute to be vacant and for release under Section 12 and 16 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 5. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 30.07.2007 considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the possession of the petitioner pursuant to the agreement dropped the proceedings for declaring the premises to be vacant. 6. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondents by filing a revision and the same has been allowed by the impugned order dated 12.07.2007. The revisional court recorded that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had tried to avoid deciding the dispute on merits and therefore remanded the matter for fresh decision in accordance with law as early as possible. 7. A bare reading of the revisional order reveals that it is self contradictory and that the court without understanding and controversy involved has unnecessarily set aside the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer so as to remand the matter. 8. No reasons exists in the order for remanding the matter. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, as the tenancy of petitioner is admitted and it is no one's case that he has removed his effects therefrom or has allowed it to be occupied by a person other than his family member, the premises in dispute cannot be declared to be vacant. Accordingly, there was no error in the order dated 30.07.2007 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 10. Accordingly, there was no error in the order dated 30.07.2007 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 10. Therefore, the impugned order of remand passed by the revisional court dated 12.07.2007 is hereby quashed. 11. The writ petition is allowed with no costs.