The appellant and companylandlords filed the Writ Petition No.
On this a Rent Revision was filed by respondent Nos.
After hearing the parties, the writ petition was allowed by the High Court, vide order dated 26.5.1999 with the direction that the proceedings for delivery of possession to the landlord shall be re initiated from the stage they were stayed.
51 of 2006 against the interim order dated 1.12.2006, passed by the Judge hearing the companytempt petition.
He further reported that as per information received, Respondent No.
Respondent Nos.
The building in question is known as 7, Dalibagh situated in Lucknow.
1 to 3 of the Civil Appeal No.
However, the High Court rejected the preliminary objection.
Originally said property was owned by a Barrister Mohammad Wasim and on his migration to Pakistan, vested with the Custodian of Evacuee Property, and thereafter settled in favour of Rai Bahadur Lakshman Das, a displaced person.
3 Nripendra Pandey both sons of Dr. J.D. Pandey , under the banner of M s. Swargiya Sanjay Gandhi Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd,, after breaking open the locks, had unauthorizedly occupied the building.
2 Mrigendra Pandey and Respondent No.
183 R C of 1991 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, challenging the order passed by the revisional companyrt.
5688 89 of 2007 are filed by respondent Nos.
Co landlords also joined Anil Kalra by moving separate application before the Competent Authority Additional District Magistrate, City, Lucknow .
This gave cause to the appellant to file Contempt Petition No.
The Competent Authority called for a report from Rent Control Inspector, who inspected the spot and reported on 14.11.1984 that the Office of Cane Commissioner tenant on the part of the building was in the midst of vacating the same.
It is alleged by the appellant that after the tenants vacated the premises, an application was moved under Section 16 1 b of UP Act 13 of 1972 for release of the building for demolition and reconstruction before the Competent Authority authorized Additional District Magistrate .
It is pleaded that the appellant Anil Kalra, along with his brother, sister and two others, has stepped into the shoes of the landlords through Dr. Mulk Raj, Dwarika Das and Banarasi Das, heirs of Rai Bahadur Lakshman Das by way of sale deeds executed in the years 1982 1983.
1 to 3 expressed willingness to hand over possession of thirteen rooms only and number the building.
265 of 2003 before the High Court.
In the above circumstances, the appellant moved application for execution of Form D before the Rent Control Officer Additional District Magistrate, City, East, Lucknow , and on 22.2,2003 said authority issued direction for execution of Form D. It is alleged by the appellant that to frustrate the release order, respondent Nos.
The appellant raised a preliminary objection that numberSpecial Appeal is maintainable against the order of the Judge hearing the companytempt petition.
265 of 2006 and Contempt Appeal No.
The unauthorized occupants filed a review petition before the Competent Authority Additional District Magistrate, City , but the same was dismissed with the finding that the occupants were transferees from Swargiya Sanjay Gandhi Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., which has numbertitle or authority to occupy the building.
When after issuance of Form C unauthorized occupants failed to vacate the building, Form D was issued.
Thereafter, the respondents filed Special Appeal Intra Court Appeal No.
The revision was decided by V Additional District Judge, Lucknow, vide order dated 28.10.1991, in favour of said respondents.
But it appears that physical possession companyld number be delivered to the allottee as the building was in occupation of several tenants.
51 of 2006.
24659 60 of 2002 had been dismissed.
With the above information, the Rent Control Inspector recommended that deemed vacancy be declared in respect of the building under Section 12 1 b of UP Act 13 of 1972, and further reported that there was a case in favour of the landlord appellant for getting released the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction.
1 to 3, was dismissed on 4.7.2002.
1 to 3 Dr. J.D. Pandey and his two sons Mrigendra Pandey and Nripendra Pandey, both advocates .
Hence, this appeal through special leave, before us.
By UP Act 28 of 1976 words ten years were substituted by twenty years, and by UP Act No.
11 of 1988 twenty years were substituted with forty years.
It was further reported by the Rent Control Inspector that the Deputy Cane Commissioner had apprehended that the part vacated by him was also likely to be occupied by said society, and a First Information Report was lodged to that effect and the District Magistrate, Lucknow, was also informed about it.
3763 of 2007 against the judgment and orders dated 1.12.2006 and 8.12.2006, passed by the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.
1 to 3 offered to give possession of thirteen rooms only, and got the eviction proceedings stalled against unauthorized occupants.
The application for recall, filed by respondent Nos.
24659 60 of 2002 on 10.12.2002, by this Court.
In said proceeding also respondent Nos.
The companytempt appeal was dismissed as number maintainable.
Connected Civil Appeal Nos.
1 to 3 filed Contempt Appeal No.
The single Judge, hearing the companytempt petition, directed the Rent Control Officer Additional District Magistrate, City to companyply the order of the High Court, passed in the writ petition, against which Special Leave Petition C Nos.
923 of 2006 before the High Court.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. The dispute in the present matter pertains to a hundred year old building, which is companyered under Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 for short UP Act 13 of 1972 .
Thereafter, vide order dated 30.12.1986 on application dated 25.2.1986 , the Competent Authority issued the order for release of the building under Section 16 1 b of UP Act 13 of 1972 in favour of the appellant and companylandlords.
Section 13 of said Act placed restriction on landlord, tenant and also on any other person from occupying the building in any capacity, without there being an order of release in favour of landlord, or order of allotment in case of tenant.
That round of litigation attained finality with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition Nos.
On perusal of the report of the Rent Control Inspector and after inviting objections of companycerned parties, vacancy was declared.
