This application is by the tenant petitioner.
who was a number occupant owner, on or about 25th February, 1978 filed an application under section 16 5 of the Act, after 25 days of allotment, for review of the Order.
Distt.
The learned Addl.
The petitioner before the High Court, who is the petitioner herein also, was directed number to be dispossessed until disposal of the matter by the High Court.
The possession was, thereafter, taken up, it was alleged by the petitioner in the special leave petition.
The 3 other companyowners never objected to the petitioners tenancy on the allotment order throughout the last 10 years.
revision against the said order was filed before the learned Judge under section 18 of the Act.
Judge dismissed the revision.
From the Judgment and order dated 27.4.1988 of the High Court of Allahabad in C.M.W. No.
The allotment letter was accordingly passed on 12th February, 1978.
Until January, 1978, Veeresh Saxena was in sole and exclusive actual physical possession of the shop and carried on business in it.
It was alleged by the petitioner that the evidence was overwhelmingly in support of the fact that he had taken PG NO 279 possession of the premises on or about 4/5th February, 1978.
The premises in question had five companyowners, namely, Veeresh Saxena, R.C. Saxena.
D.C. Saxena, Smt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The petitioner, thereafter, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad .
The Rent Controller, however, on the said application of S. Saxena allowed the review application and cancelled the allotment order.
6577 of 1988.
L. Sanghi and Manoj Prasad for the Petitioner.
The petitioner had alleged that he had invested more than Rs.2 lakhs in the shop, but B.S. Saxena.
Shanti Saxena and S. Saxena, respondent No.
On the Inspectors report being pasted on the Notice Board of the Rent Controller Office, neither B.S. Saxena number the other 3 companyowners filed any objection.
On 28.1.1978, Veeresh Saxena vacated the shop and sent intimation of vacancy to the Rent Control Officer under the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter called the Act .
City Magistrate or the Officer at present exercising the power of Distt.
The Rent Control Officer, then, directed him to appear in the allotment proceedings The Inspector reported that Veeresh Saxena was found to be in possession of the shop, discontinuing the business and was going to let out the shop.
PG NO 278 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This application for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad, dated 27th April, 1988 by the judgment under challenge the Division Bench by majority directed the Addl.
Veeresh Saxena filed an affidavit before the Rent Control Officer that he wanted to let out the shop to the petitioner.
3777 of 1987.
In January, 1978 the present petitioner filed allotment application for the shop and he was the sole applicant.
