SH MARKANDEY SINGH Vs. SHAHEDA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit No. 1046 of 1985 was filed by M/s. Naya Sahitya Prakashan through its proprietor Sri Markandey Singh, son of Thakur Singh, who is an appellant in the present appeal, claiming the reliefs of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from the suit property in execution of the release order dated 28.4.1980 under Section 21 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972, passed by the First Additional District Judge. Allahabad, in Rent Control Appeal No. 657 of 1979 and further declaring that the said order is non est, void and inoperative against the plaintiff and the plaintiff cannot be ejected from the accommodation in his tenancy in building No. 2-D/12, Minto Road. Allahabad.

(2.) The plaint allegations in abort were that the plaintiff is a proprietorship firm and proprietor of the firm is tenant of part of the building which is shown by red colour in the plaint map. Defendant No. 1 is landlord and defendant No. 2 is also tenant of part of the said building shown by blue colour. Originally the father of the proprietor of plaintiff was Inducted as tenant in the year 1950 and defendant No. 2 became tenant in the year 1964. The defendant No, 1 Issued rent receipts prior to December. 1960 but from December, 1960, defendant No. 1 stopped issuing rent receipts. Certain portion in the tenancy of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 was common. The plaintiff had been using kitchen, latrine, bath room, court yard and open lawn and appurtenant land with the permission of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 in collusion with, defendant No. 2 and without notice and consent of the plaintiff filed a case under Section 21 of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972 and in Rent Control Appeal No. 657 of 1979 obtained an order of release against defendant No. 2 in respect of entire building except one room. Defendant No. 2 had filed a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed and the appellate court was directed to redecide the appeal after following the procedure laid down in Rule 16 (1) of the Rules framed under U. P. Act 13 of 1972. Order dated 28.4.1980 passed in appeal by the appellate court arising out of P. A. Case No. 63 of 1965 was void and not effective against the plaintiff and he cannot be evicted pursuant to the said order. On 16.12.1985, defendant No. 1 threatened to evict the plaintiff taking advantage of order dated 28.4.1980 and then the suit was filed. It was also alleged that since tenancy of the plaintiff was continuing from before enforcement of U. P. Act 13 of 1972, the rights of the plaintiff were saved by provisions of Section 14 of the said Act. It was also stated in the plaint that order dated 28.4.1980 has been obtained by playing fraud.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 contested the suit on the grounds that there is no firm in the name and style of Naya Sahitya Prakashan and the suit filed by the said firm is not maintainable. The alleged firm or Its proprietor Sri Markandey Singh is not tenant of any part of the building in question nor is firm or alleged firm's proprietor in possession of the same. Sri Krishna Das husband of defendant No. 2 was tenant of the entire premises No. 2-D/12, Minto Road, Allahabad. During life time of Sri Krishna Das, the tenant, defendant No. 1 instituted proceedings under Section 21 of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972 for release of the tenanted property. The application was allowed in appeal under Section 22 of the said Act. Sri Krishna Das filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6444 of 1980 which was allowed by the High Court and the case was remanded to the appellate court for following the provisions of Rule 16 (1) (d) of the Rules under U. P. Act 13 of 1972. The appeal was again decided by Judgment and order dated 24.9.1985 and the entire building except one room on the southern side was released in favour of defendant No. 1, in proceedings under Section 21 the defendant No. 1 had asserted that Sri Krishna Das had illegally permitted Sri Markandey Singh to occupy some portion but the tenant Sri Krishna Das denied the same and asserted that Sri Markandey Singh was only a collaborator with him in his work and that Sri Markandey Singh has given his address only for purpose of receiving his malls. It was further alleged that Markandey Singh was actively doing pairvi in the case of late Sri Krishna Das and after his death on behalf of his widow Smt Sarojni pas defendant No. 2 at every stage of proceedings and he was in know of all the facts Involved in the said proceedings. As a matter of fact Sri Markandey Singh was pairokar of late Sri Krishna Das and Smt. Sarojni Das and when they could not succeed after long and hotly contested litigation, plaintiff has come forward by filing the present frivolous suit with concocted allegations. The plaintiff-was never admitted to the tenancy of any part or portion of the premises in question and there never existed any contract of tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 or his late father at any point of time and no rent was ever paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 or her father. The alleged receipts of rent relied by the plaintiff are fabricated and forged documents. There is no collusion between the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. The proceedings under Section 22 was hotly contested. The plaintiff thus has no right to file the present suit.