The main legal point established in the judgment is the finality of orders under the Landlord-Tenant Act and the lack of merit in impleading the petitioner in the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The petitioner of the present Writ Petition claims himself to be the purchaser of the property, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 5th February, 2000, which was claimed to have been executed in his favour by the predecessor/owner of the property, i.e. respondent No.9. It is on the strength of the said sale deed dated 05.02.2000, that the petitioner contends that he would be entitled to give a challenge to the impugned orders, i.e. 15th April, 2009, as was passed by the District Judge, Almora, in Civil Revision No. 4 of 2007, Vinita Gupta and others Vs. Harish Chandra Agarwal and others, which was preferred under Section 18 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, against the order dated 12.02.2001 passed by the competent Authority, under Section 16 (1) (b) of Act No. 13 of 1972.

2. The chequered history of the proceedings itself, in fact, shows that the landlord/respondent No.9, as he principally and initially was, had filed an application under Section 12 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, for the purposes of declaration of vacancy of the tenement, in question, which was claimed by landlord respondent No.9, to have fallen vacant, from the occupancy of the respondent Nos.1 to 8, who are said to be the tenants in occupation of the tenement, which was sought to be declared vacant by invoking the provisions contained under Section 12 of the Act of 1972.

3. On this application, as was submitted by respondent No.9 landlord, on 29.09.1999, a report was called for by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, which was submitted by the said Authority on 27.11.1999, and consequent to the report thus submitted on 27.11.1999, a publication for declaration of vacancy was made on 22.12.1999, and ultimately, upon consideration of an objection, the vacancy was declared by an order dated 25th February, 2000, and the tenement was declared to be vacant.

4. It was after the declaration of the vacancy on 25.02.2000, that the application for allotment/release was submitted by the landlord, and was filed under Section 16 of the Act, for seeking the allotment and releases of the building thus declared vacant under Section 12 of the Act, i.e. the tenement, which was earlier occupied by respondent Nos. 1 to 8.

5. On these applications, the objection were invited and was submitted by the sitting tenants, i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 8, which was an objection as submitted by them on 7th March, 2000, where the very fact of the declaration of the vacancy on 25th February, 2000, was made as a subject matter of challenge.

6. There had been a Recall Application too, which was filed by the tenants, seeking recall of an order dated 25th February, 2000, of declaration of the vacancy of the tenement, in question, to which, the reply was filed by the respondent No.9, the landlord, on 31st March, 2000. Consequently, by an order of 19th July, 2000, the recall of the tenants was dismissed, against which, the tenants had preferred a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 30947 of 2000, before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, in which, the order of rejection of the recall dated 19th July, 2000, was initially kept in abeyance by an interim order dated 29th July, 2000, as was passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.

7. It is an admitted case that ultimately as a consequence of declaration of the vacancy on 25.02.2000, and also as a consequence of the rejection of the recall application, which was preferred by the sitting tenants against the order of declaration of the vacancy, the application was submitted under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act, for the release of the accommodation, by the landlord, was allowed and, consequently, the tenement was released in favour of the landlord by an order 12.02.2001, and as a consequence thereto, the possession of the tenement, in question, was handed over to the landlord by the Rent Control Eviction Officer on 15th July, 2001. Hence, the release made in favour of respondent No.9, under Section 16 (1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972,