Allahabad High Court
Smt. Tara Shahi vs District Judge, Gorakhpur And Others on 29 July, 2010
Author: Devendra Pratap Singh
Bench: Devendra Pratap Singh
Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23198 of 1999 Petitioner :- Smt. Tara Shahi Respondent :- District Judge, Gorakhpur And Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.N.Tripathi,S.K. Tripathi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
On the petitioner's application House No. 690, Mohaddipur in Gorakhpur was declared vacant treating Farid Ahamad (respondent no. 4) as the landlord and he nominated the petitioner for the allotment and thus the Rent Controller vide order dated 30.9.1993 allotted the disputed accommodation in his favour. However, the respondent no. 3, Smt. Jahida Begum, when came to know about the allotment she preferred a revision no. 5 of 1997 challenging the allotment order on the ground that she was the owner and landlord and fraudulently the said accommodation was allotted without her knowledge. After the parties were put to notice and they led their respective evidence, the revisional court by the impugned order dated 24.2.1999 set aside the allottment order and remanded the case to the Rent Controller on the ground that prima facie, the Jahida Begum appeared to be owner and landlord even according to the municipal records. This order is impugned in the present petition and an interim order is operating since May, 1999.
The order sheet reveals that the petitioner has been able to get adjournments every now and then. In pursuance to the notice issued to the respondent no. 3, the main contesting party, a report was submitted by the postal department, which is apparent from the office report dated 30.7.2009, that she had died long ago. The petitioner has filed a substitution application to bring on record the alleged heirs of deceased contesting respondent no. 3 along with a delay condonation application in February, 2010 stating in paragraph nos. 2 and 6 of the affidavit that she died on 6.4.2008 but the petitioner came to know about it only on 23.1.2010. From the affidavit and the address mentioned in the array of parties, it is apparent that the petitioner and the deceased respondent no. 3, both were residing in the same locality, Mohaddipur of Gorakhpur and it cannot be believed that she would not know about the death of the respondent no. 3 for about two years, especially when she is involved in a legal matter before this Court. Therefore, the ground given in the delay condonation application does not appear to be correct.
In view of the aforesaid, the delay condonation application and the substitution application are hereby rejected. Since the legal heirs of respondent no. 3 have not been brought on record, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed and the interim order is vacated.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Rent Control Eviction Officer, Gorakhpur within two weeks for further action in pursuance of the order of remand.
Order Date :- 29.7.2010 AK