NAVNEET PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. BISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals, by special leave, arise from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in C.M.W.P. No. 24673 of 1991 on December 14, 1998. Respondent No. 3 in that writ petition is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 5058 of 1999, he also claims to be a legal representative of one Sheela Devi, the 4th respondent therein-being one of her sons. Among the other sons and daughters, the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 5018 of 1999, have chosen to file the appeal.

(2.) The dispute arises under U. P. Urban Buildings [Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short "the Act"). The facts giving rise to these appeals are so twined as to form a maze. We shall confine reference to bare facts so as to appreciate the controversy. It appears, one Seva Ram was having a Dal Mill in property bearing No. 9/49 (old 7/3, Mohalla Ahata Nidhan Singh, Aligarh). The said Sheela Devi was the widow of his grandson late Ram Kishore Gupta. One Pratibha Rani filed Suit No. 876 of 1972 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Aligarh. This suit was against the husband of Sheela Devi and her brother-in-law Narendra Kumar for possession. In this suit, the property was described by specifying its boundaries but without giving any number, Appellants claim that this suit is in respect of an adjacent house bearing No. 9/75. In the said suit, the appellant in C.A. No. 5058 of 1999 was later impleaded as the 3rd defendant. Claiming to be in possession of premises No. 9/75, the appellant filed Application No. 80 of 1973 under Section 14 of the Act for regularisation of her tenancy in 1973. By order dated September 23, 1973, her alleged tenancy was regularised by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter called R.C.).

(3.) The dispute now projected before us relates to premises bearing No. 9/49, referred to above, which was numbered from 1952 to 1962 as 7/3 and as 14/36 from 1962 to 1975. It is only after 1975, the number of the premises is referred to as No. 9/49. Appellants claim that premises No. 9/49 is separate and distinct from property No. 9/75. This is denied by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who claim that there was and is no property bearing No. 9/75.