The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a petitioner to seek restoration and contest a revision on its merits if it has not been decided on its merits.

Sunita Agarwal, J. –

Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 6.1.2016 passed in application 67-Ga for impleadment in the Rent Revision No. 11 of 2014 (Smt. Usha Verma & another v. Shiv Narayan Kashyap & others).

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner namely Kamal Chandra Mishra claims himself a co-owner of the disputed property which has been declared vacant by order dated 26.9.2013.

4. It appears that after declaration of vacancy, two release applications were filed. One by the petitioner namely Kamal Chandra Mishra and another by Maya Rani Gupta who had purchased the disputed property by way of a sale deed dated 18.1.2010 from other co-owners namely Kranti Chandra Mishra and his sister Smt. Lakkhi Pandey.

5. It appears that the release application filed by Kamal Chandra Mishra was rejected on the ground that he sought release of three shops which were not subject matter of order of vacancy. The vacancy has been declared only with regard to residential portion at the ground floor of house No. 86/48, Raipurwa, Kanpur Nagar, lying at the west side of the ground floor. So far as the claim of Smt. Maya Rani Gupta is concerned, that was allowed on the basis of sale deed dated 18.1.2010 being a valid document of transfer of title.

6. It appears that the petitioner, Kamal Chandra Mishra filed a revision against the order of rejection of his release passed on 20.1.2014. The said revision has been dismissed on 13.5.2014 for non-prosecution. Without filing any application for restoration of his revision, the present impleadment application has been filed. The Court below has rejected the application on the ground that the right of the petitioner for release of the premises in question has been determined with the dismissal of his revision. So far as the present revision filed by the tenant is concerned, the petitioner is only a third party and has no right to contest.

7. By that as it may, this Court finds that the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of rejection of his release, has not been decided on merits. The claim of the petitioner over the claim of transferee landlord, has not been adjudicated by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer while rejecting his release. However, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to get his revision restored and contest it on merits. It is admitted that no restoration/recall application has been filed by the petitioner till date. As such this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order dated 6.1.2016.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that the petitioner undertakes to move a restoration application along with Section 5 application within a period of ten days from today.

9. In case, such an application is moved, the Court below shall decide the restoration application on merits considering the explanation given by the petitioner for delay in filing the same.

10. In case, the petitioner succeeds and his revision is restored, the same be tagged along with the Rent Revision No. 11 of 2014 and both the revisions shall be heard and decided together.

11. It is made clear that the Court below shall not allow any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties including the petitioner in the pending proceeding before it.

12. In case any such adjournment is sought, heavy cost shall be imposed by the Court below.

13. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Petition disposed of.