Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Dharam Pal Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajeev Trivedi, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Manoj Kumar, Advocate appearing for the respondent.

2. The judgment and order dated 28.4.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Moradabad in purported exercise of powers under Section 19 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1972”) revoking release order dated 15.5.2004 in respect to property in dispute, namely, a shop situated at Mohalla Chowk Tadi Khana, Tyagi Market Court Road, Moradabad has given rise to the present writ petition.

3. Petitioners are landlords of the shop in dispute.

4. The facts, in brief, are that Sri Dhirendra Kumar Tyagi, [now deceased and substituted by petitioner No. 1 (wife), petitioner No. 2 (son) and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 (daughters)] let out the shop in dispute to one Kishan Lal on rent who closed his business sometimes in the year 2003 and intimated Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the “RCEO”) about his intention to vacate the shop in dispute. The RCEO declared aforesaid shop vacant vide order dated 14.1.2004, whereupon late Dhirendra Kumar Tyagi made an application dated 23.1.2004 seeking release of shop in dispute under Section 16(1)(b) of Act, 1972. This application was registered as Case No. 01 of 2004.

5. The respondent, Gurmeet Singh, however, filed an application seeking allotment of shop in dispute in his favour. The RCEO rejected release application filed by landlord vide order dated 9.2.2004 and thereafter vide allotment order dated 10.2.2004 allotted the shop in dispute in favour of respondent-Gurmeet Singh.

6. The outgoing tenant, Kishan Lal directly handed over possession of disputed shop to respondent-allottee i.e. Sri Gurmeet Singh on 11.2.2004 itself.

7. Sri Dhirendra Kumar Tyagi (landlord) assailed orders dated 9.2.2004 and 10.2.2004 in Rent Control Revisions No. 01 of 2004 and 04 of 2004. The two revisions were decided by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Moradabad by a common judgment and order dated 7.4.2004 and thereby the release application was allowed and allotment made in favour of respondent was revoked, by setting aside RCEO’s orders dated 9.2.2004 and 10.2.2004. The Revisional Court also directed the respondent-allottee to pay rent/damages at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month to landlord for the period, the shop in dispute, remain in his possession.

8. The respondent assailed revisional order dated 7.4.2004 before this Court in Writ Petition No. 15368 of 2004. The writ petition was allowed on a short point that on 7.4.2004, revisions were not fixed for hearing but for disposal of Amin’s report and, therefore, Revisional Court must decide revisions afresh after giving opportunity to all concerned parties and accordingly this Court set aside judgment and order dated 7.4.2004, and remanded the matter to Revisional Court to decide afresh. The operative part of judgment dated 15.4.2004 of this Court, reads as under:

“Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order and judgments dated 7.4.2004 are set aside. Revisional Court namely Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Moradabad is directed to hear both the revisions on merit on 29.4.2004 on which date both the parties are directed to appear before the revisional Court. Absolutely no unnecessary adjournment in any form shall be granted by the revisional Court. The Revisional Court must dictate the judgment either on 29.4.2004 itself or deliver the same within a period of 10 days thereafter. Petitioner shall not dispossessed until 15.5.2004. It is clarified that revisional Court shall not grant any further stay order. It is also directed that on or before the next date i.e. 29.4.2004 the petitioner shall pay rent to landlord respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 1,750/- per month due till 30.4.2004.”

9. The matter was heard