1988 (9) TMI 352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wer of Distt. Magistrate under Rule 10(9) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Rules 1972 to issue notice on all the five landlords mentioned in the petition within one week of the filing of the certified copy of the Order, and thereafter to make an Order in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the said Judgment. The petitioner before the High Court, who is the petitioner herein also, was directed not to be dispossessed until disposal of the matter by the High Court. This application is by the tenant-petitioner. The premises in question had five co-owners, namely, Veeresh Saxena, R.C. Saxena. D.C. Saxena, Smt. Shanti Saxena and B.S. Saxena, respondent No. 3. Until January, 1978,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Order. It was alleged by the petitioner that the evidence was overwhelmingly in support of the fact that he had taken possession of the premises on or about 4/5th February, 1978. The Rent Controller, however, on the said application of B.S. Saxena allowed the review application and cancelled the allotment order. revision against the said order was filed before the learned Judge under section 18 of the Act. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge dismissed the revision. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad . The question arose about the maintainability of the review application under section 16(5) of the Act. It is upon this point that the matter has been agitated before us. There was a difference of op....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order or is evicted in pursuant thereof, is not competent to make an application for review of the allotment order or release order under section 16(5)(a) & (b) of the Act. Admittedly, as mentioned hereinbefore, the respondent applicant was not in occupation when the Order was made. He was, however, indisputably a landlord. So, the question is whether on the construction of the section, a landlord who Is not in actual physical possession at the time of the release order, is entitled under the law to apply for review of the order. The High Court held that he is entitled. We are of the opinion that the High Court was right. Section 16(5)(a) speaks of 'where the landlord or any other person'. Hence, there are two categories of perso....