This is denied by respondent Nos.
69 of 1985 against the order dated September 27, 1985 and U. P. U. B. Revision No.
24673 of 1991 on December 14, 1998.
Claiming to be in possession of premises No.
The appellant also challenged the said orders in U. P. U. B. Revision No.
1 to 3 filed the afore mentioned writ petition.
However, the application for recall is resting at that stage.
9/75, the appellant filed Application No.
Among the other sons and daughters, the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
9/49 is separate and distinct from property No.
One Rajendra Kumar Varshney filed Application No.
But the learned R. C. rejected the same on September 27, 1985 however, the application of respondent Nos.
9/49 to which respondent Nos.
Sheela Devi also filed an application under Section 16 of the Act for release of premises No.
9/49 old 7/3, Mohalla Ahata Nidhan Singh, Aligarh .
9/49 be declared as vacant and be allotted to him.
In the said suit, the appellant in C.A. No.
In this suit, the property was described by specifying its boundaries but without giving any number, Appellants claim that this suit is in respect of an adjacent house bearing No.
5058 of 1999 was later impleaded as the 3rd defendant.
5018 of 1999, have chosen to file the appeal.
1 to 3 who claim that there was and is numberproperty bearing No.
Syed Shah Mohammad Quadri and S.N. Variava, JJ.
9/49, referred to above, which was numbered from 1952 to 1962 as 7/3 and as 14/36 from 1962 to 1975.
3 in that writ petition is the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
All the three revisions came to be disposed of by a companymon order dated May 15, 1991 by the learned District Judge, Aligarh.
80 of 1973 under Section 14 of the Act for regularisation of her tenancy in 1973.
One Pratibha Rani filed Suit No.
The dispute arises under U. P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting.
1 to 3 are parties.
This suit was against the husband of Sheela Devi and her brother in law Narendra Kumar for possession.
It is only after 1975, the number of the premises is referred to as No.
The appellant claims to have filed an application to recall that order and it is stated that pursuant to an order made thereon, an inspection of the premises was made and report submitted.
Sheela Devi filed U. P. U. B. Revision No.
Appellants claim that premises No.
5058 of 1999, he also claims to be a legal representative of one Sheela Devi, the 4th respondent therein being one of her sons.
The facts giving rise to these appeals are so twined as to form a maze.
118 of 1983 under Section 12 of the Act praying that premises No.
These two appeals, by special leave, arise from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in C.M.W.P. No.
On January 11, 1985, that application was allowed by the R. C. declaring the vacancy but making numberorder of allotment in his favour.
82 of 1985.
The orders under challenge in revision were set aside and the case was directed to be remitted to the Rent Controller for fresh disposal.
By order dated September 23, 1973, her alleged tenancy was regularised by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer hereinafter called R.C. The dispute number projected before us relates to premises bearing No.
7 of 1986 against the order of the Rent Controller dated December 6, 1985.
876 of 1972 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Aligarh.
The said Sheela Devi was the widow of his grandson late Ram Kishore Gupta.
Dissatisfied with the said order of the District Judge, respondent Nos.
Respondent No.
1 to 3 filed under Section 16 of the Act for release of the said premises in their favour was ordered on December 6, 1985.
