JUDGMENT :

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Piyush Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed today an impleadment application dated 24.07.2019, to implead the owner of the house, namely, Sri Sanjay Mittal, son of late K.K. Mittal as per detail mentioned in the prayer clause of the application. The application is allowed. Sri Sanjay Mittal is allowed to be impleaded as respondent No.4.

3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following relief:-

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07.06.2019 (Annexure - 1' to this writ petition) passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent no.1.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner in premise, House No.111/316 Harsh Nagar, P.S. Najirabad, Kanpur Nagar.

4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that Vinay Kumar Jain and Vijay Kumar Jain both are the sons of Satya Narain Jain. Sri Satya Narayan Jain was the original owner and landlord of House No.111/316, Harsh Nagar, P.S. Najirabad, Kanpur Nagar. After his death his two sons, namely, Vinay Kumar Jain and Vijay Kumar Jain became owner and landlord of the aforesaid house. Subsequently, Vijay Kumar Jain has sold his share in the aforesaid house to his brother's wife Smt. Rekha Jain by a registered sale deed dated 08.11.2006. Vinay Kumar Jain and his wife Rekha Jain sold the aforesaid entire house to the newly impleaded respondent no.4 by a registered sale deed dated 06.12.2017, registered on 12.12.2017.

5. One Sri Kashi Nath Baijal was the tenant in a portion of the aforesaid house. He had three sons, namely, Pramod Kumar Baijal, Deepak Kumar Baijal and Jyoti Kumar Baijal. During his life time an order dated 24.07.1992 was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar, declaring the vacancy of the disputed portion of the house in question. Sri Baijal challenged that order in Rent Revision No.148 of 1992 which was allowed by judgment dated 14.09.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar, concluding as under:-

"Thus, from he above discussions, it is clear that there was no occasion for the R.C. & E.O. to review the order passed by his predecessor for not declaring the vacancy. Once an order was passed for declaring that no vacancy exists then the said order could not have been reviewed by the R.C. & E.O. Furthermore, the property in dispute was not vacant and the revisionist was having the possession of the same in pursuance of the tripartite agreement and his possession was the of a sub-tenant. That after retirement the revisionist paid rent to the then owner and the owner/landlord accepted the rent and there was no vacancy and he became owner. In these circumstances, the revision deserves to be allowed and the order dated 24.7.1992 including the order dated 18.1.92 declaring vacancy and the order dated 23.1.92 ordering allotment in favour of O.P. No.1 deserve to be quashed, and accordingly the revision deserves to be allowed as the R.C. & E.O. has illegally exercised the jurisdiction vested in him in passing the impugned order."

6. From the aforesaid judgment dated 14.09.2004 in Rent Revision No.148 of 1992, it appears that original tenant was State Bank of India and subsequently Kashi Nath Baizal was admitted as a tenant.

7. Sri Pramod Kumar Baizal was the eldest son of the tenant - Sri Kashi Nath Baizal who acquired House No. 10/M/1, Block - 10, Scheme 40, Dabhauli, Kanpur Nagar, in vacant state by a registered sale deed dated 16.01.1984. Subsequently, Pramod Kumar Baizal died on 23.05.2001. His wife Madhu Baizal inherited the said house and got it free hold in her