RAJ KUMARI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. M. Sahai, J. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Som Narain Mishra appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 9-2-1987 for releasing the shop in dispute on the ground that it was required by them for establishing Suresh Kumar in business and the need was bona fide and genuine. In the application the respondents also mentioned the details as to how they have became owner of the property in dispute. Mohan Lal, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 to 4 who was tenant of the premises contested the release application on the ground that since title of the landlord is in dispute therefore, unless the dispute is decided the release application is not maintainable.

(3.) SRI Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel urged that application of the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not maintainable because the landlord's title was in dispute and unless the dispute was decided by the competent Civil Court, respondents 3 and 4 could not move release application under the Act. He further urged that compromise decree passed subsequent to the release application was a collusive decree and was in the nature of sale-deed which will not confer any title on respondents 3 and 4. He lastly urged that the findings recorded by the Court below on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship is perverse. On the other hand, SRI Rajesh Tandon learned Senior Counsel has supported the judgment passed by the Court below.