PRABHAT KISHORE Vs. RUKMANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a tenant-turned-property-transferee of premises situate at Rama Market, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. Originally, the premises were the subject of P.A. Case No. 01 of 2013, instituted by the Respondent under Sec. 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 seeking release for the alleged bona fide requirement of her grandson. During the pendency of those proceedings, the parties entered into a written compromise dtd. 22/4/2013, duly verified before the Prescribed Authority. Under the said compromise, it was mutually agreed that the ownership and possession of the tenanted premises bearing No. 435, Rama Market would vest in the Petitioner, whereas the Respondent would acquire the terrace portions of properties bearing Nos.433 and 434 and the staircase. The compromise further recorded that the parties would execute the consequential sale deeds.

(2.) In view of the said compromise, the release application was disposed of on 23/4/2013 by the learned Prescribed Authority on agreed terms. It is further case of the Petitioner that despite repeated requests, the Respondent did not execute sale deeds in terms of the compromise, but instead, filed a fresh release application being P.A. Case No. 05 of 2020, again invoking Sec. 21(1)(a) of the Act, alleging bona fide need in respect of the same premises, without disclosing that the ownership had already stood transferred under the compromise.

(3.) In the said P.A. Case No. 05 of 2020, the Petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was rejected on 22/11/2020, leading to Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2539 of 2021, which was disposed of by this Court on 5/7/2023, holding that although Order VII Rule 11 CPC applies to proceedings under the Act, the defence must ordinarily be raised in objections.