Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(ORAL)
1. Shri Gulam Mohd. s/o Shamsher preferred this petition with the following two main prayers:-
"(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders/ letters dated 06.04.2011 and 30.05.2013 issued by the opposite party No.2 & 3 respectively as contained in Annexure No.1 & 8 to this writ petition after summoning the original from the office of the respondents.
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to re-fix the reasonable rent of the disputed shops after getting the survey report from the Public Works Department or any other competent agency and not to evict the Petitioner from the shops in question in accordance with relevant provisions contained in the government order dated 15.06.1987 or in alternate to fix the rate of rent by following the 12.5% increase in every five years in the existing rent on the date on which the dispute arose between the parties as is being done by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Barabanki.
(III) (IV)......"
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not appeared to prosecute the case. The petition relates to the year 2013. Six years have gone by. We find no justifiable reason to adjourn the matter. In such circumstances, we have gone through the pleadings, and have considered the issue raised by the petitioner with the assistance of Shri Raj Baksh Singh, learned counsel for the State.
3. We find that Gulam Mohd. died and has been substituted by Jamal Ahmad, his son vide order dated 10.4.2019 passed by this court.
4. It was pleaded by Gulam Mohd. that he earlier filed Writ Petition No.11609 (MB) of 2009. The petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 (Nideshak, Nideshalaya, Sainik Kalyan Evam Purarvas, U.P. Lucknow) to dispose of his representation in accordance with law. Till disposal of the representation the said petitioner (Gulam Mohd.) be not dispossessed from the shops in question.
It has been pleaded that thereafter Writ Petition No.5901 (MB) of 2010 was filed by the then petitioner when rent of the shop was fixed at Rs.2429/- per month. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation. Consequently representation was decided and the rent was fixed at Rs.1500/- per month. As per the pleading made by Shri Gulam Mohd even that rent was too high and therefore the writ petition under adjudication was filed.
5. Shri Raj Baksh Singh, learned counsel for the State has pointed out that on the death of Gulam Mohd the right of his son to continue in possession does not survive in terms of government order dated 5.2.2010 placed on record as Annexure CA-3 with the counter affidavit.
6. We have gone through the document dated 5.2.2010. In para 8 (3) it has been clearly stated that after death of the allottee the contract would automatically cease. It has been clarified therein that the legal representative would have no legal right and would have to handover peaceful possession of the premises within one month of the death of the allottee.
7. Considering the said clause, we find that Jamal Ahmad son of the original petitioner would have no right to continue in possession.
8. In view of changed circumstances as noticed above, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Madhu