SHANKER LAL Vs. RAM SEWAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 4.9.1991 passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 3, whereby he allowed application filed by Ram Sewak, respondent No. 1, for restoration of possession of the disputed premises.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') against Ram Kumar, respondent No. 2, alleging that the disputed shop is in a dilapidated condition and is needed by him. The application was contested by Ram Kumar. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application on 25.4.1987. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the District Judge. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal on 8.9.1990 and directed the eviction of respondent No. 2. He filed Writ Petition No. 7747 of 1990. This writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 6.4.1990. Respondent No. 2 filed SLP No. 7916 of 1990 before the Hon'ble the Supreme Court. It was dismissed on 30.7.1990.

(3.) RAM Sewak, respondent No. 1, filed an application on 5.10.1990 under Order 20I, Rule 100 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure praying that he may be restored possession as he was evicted in execution of an order passed in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act in which he was not a party. He claimed that his father, Narain Das, was a tenant of the disputed shop, and after his death it was inherited by his two sons, namely, Ram Kumar and Ram Sewak, respondent No. 1. It was contended that the landlord had impleaded only Ram Kumar as a party in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act and he was not made a party. The petitioner filed objection alleging that, in fact, Ram Kumar alone was in occupation of the shop in question and in any case he represented the estate of the deceased-tenant. The Prescribed Authority has accepted the version of Ram Sewak and has allowed the application by the impugned order dated 4.9.1991 and directed the petitioner to restore the possession to him. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.