MEENA DAS Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the question which requires consideration is, as to whether on an application for restitution of possession on the ground of setting aside an exparte decree in proceedings under the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the persons claiming to be heirs of the deceased tenant within the meaning of secion 3 (1) (a) of the Act are entitled to be put back in possession, without final adjudication of the contention of the respondent-landlord that the persons claiming to be the heirs of the deceased tenant, are not tenant, within the meaning of section 3 (I) (a) of the Act.

(2.) NECESSARY facts for the decision of the writ petition are as under :- One Sunit Kumar Das was the tenant of the disputed premises situate at 6-B, Stanley Road, Allahabad. The contesting respondents, namely, Ravindra Sinha and Shivendra Sinha are admittedly the landlord of the premises in dispute The respondent-landlord filed an application under section 21 (I) (a) of the Act seeking eviction of the tenant Sri Sunit Kumar Das on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises in dispute. On the basis of an exparte order, obtaing release of the house in their favour the respondent- landlord tried to take possession of the disputed premises on 7 th July. 1988. There is some dispute regarding the factum of taking possession by the respondent-landlord on the basis of exparte order, but for the purposes of the decision of the present writ petition, the said dispute is not very material.

(3.) THE District Magistrate, on the basis of the aforesaid report of the Addl. City Magistrate, by his letter dated 22-7-5988 informed the Prescribed Authority that the respondent-landlord has forcibly turned out Das's family from the disputed house and placed their lock in the premises and the goods of the tenant are locked in the house in dispute. THE Addl. City Magistrate was deputed to make an enquiry on the complaint and he found the complaint to be correct. THE conduct of the police inclnding the Senior Supdt. of Police is suspicious and fishy.