ANJUM ARA Vs. XITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Rathi, J. The petitioner moved an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) for the release of the premises in possession of respon dent Nos. 2 to 4, Annexure-1 to the peti tion. The application for release was al lowed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 19-11- 1997, Annexure-12 to the petition. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed Rent Appeal No. 10 of 1997 under Section 22 of the Act. The rent appeal has been allowed on 27-4-1998 by order, Annexure-13 to the peti tion. The petitioner, therefore, has in voked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India.

(2.) I have heard Sri. R. U. Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not appear and, therefore, they could no t be heard.

(3.) THE most interesting fact is that the petitioner has alleged that she became the owner of the house by private partition, Annexure-4 to the petition, the respon dents were old tenants of the house from the life time of the father of the petitioner. It has no where been alleged in the petition as to how after the partition she became the landlady of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. THEy have neither accepted this private partition nor recognised the petitioner as their landlady. THEre is no attornment by the respondents in favour of the petitioner. THEy have denied that the petitioner is the landlady and they are tenants of the petitioner. In the absence of any pleading in the application under Section 21 (l) (a) of UP. Act No. XIII of 1972, it cannot be accepted that the respondents are tenants of the petitioner. THE application of the petitioner was not maintainable.