By order dated 21.1.1975, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer released the premises in favour of first respondent by ordering eviction of the appellant.
It is in this background the learned Single Judge while directing delivery of possession, also held that the appellant tenant should pay rent damages for use and occupation at the rate of at least Rs.1,000/ per month from 18.1.1973 date of allotment in favour of appellant till 20.2.2006 date of the order of the High Court .
Thereafter, a second appeal was filed by the appellant which was also dismissed on 19.02.1982.
Thereafter, Form D was issued on 23.11.1978.
That order was challenged by the appellant in revision which was dismissed by the District Judge, Bareilly on 23.07.1975 granting six months time to the appellant to vacate the premises.
The Rent Control and Eviction Officer however rejected the release application on 10.1.1973 and alloted the premises to the appellant on 18.01.1973 without fixing any rent.
The first respondent, as landlord, filed an application for release of the suit premises residential tenement in the year 1972.
He companytended that as per the decree in a partition suit S.No.305/1974 between first respondent and second respondent, a part of the suit premises was allotted to second respondent.
The High Court held that respondents 1 and 2 were companyowners and there was numberillegality in the release order.
Ultimately the appellants suit was dismissed on 07.01.1979 recording a finding that both respondents P.N. Khanna and B.K. Khanna were the landlords and that there was numberinfirmity in the release order in favour of one of them.
The impugned order dated 20.2.2006 was passed allowing the said writ petition of the landlords.
In this background, the landlords again filed an application for possession and issuance of fresh Form D on 28.05.1983.
The appellant challenged the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt by filing a appeal before the District Judge and the appeal was dismissed on 18.02.1981.
The High Court further directed that from the date of its order 20.2.2006 to date of actual delivery of possession, the appellant shall pay Rs.100/ per day as damages.
The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 23.05.1984 upheld the objections and held that possession of the suit premises companyld number be delivered to first respondent.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of the release application and the order of allotment, the first respondent filed revision petitions.
The Additional District Judge, Bareilly allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.
That companyld number be executed in view of the temporary injunction granted in the aforesaid suit filed by the appellant.
The order dated 23.5.1984 of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the order dated 14.12.1992 of the Revisional Court were challenged in W.P.No.5585/1993 by respondents 1 and 2.
That was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition W.P.No.2065/1977 which was dismissed on 18.07.1978.
That was challenged by the landlords in revision which was rejected by the District Judge on 14.12.1992 on the ground of maintainability.
Leave granted.
The case has a chequered history.
This is a tenants appeal.
At that stage the appellant filed O.S. No.67 of 1976 companytending that the second respondent B.K. Khanna was the landlord and therefore the release in favour of first respondent P.N. Khanna was illegal, and he cannot therefore be evicted in pursuance of the release order in favour of first respondent.
In the meanwhile, in pursuance of the order of the District Judge Form C was served on the appellant for vacating the premises.
The appellant filed objections to the said application that the release order only in favour of one of the landlords companyld number be enforced.
