PYARE LAL JAISWAL Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Shahid Masood learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.M.L. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3. By means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the judgment and order dated 25.1.1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority in the proceeding under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act, the order dated 17.7.1995 passed in the appeal under section 22 of the Act and the order dated 1.12.1995 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner in proceedings under section 23 of the Act.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the premises in question being shop No. 329/B/8 Muthiganj, Luxmi Narain Road, Allahabad was in the tenancy of respondent No. 2 namely Vikram Jaiswal. The landlord filed application for release of the accommodation against the said respondent No. 2 and the prescribed authority allowed the application for release. The Appeal No. 108 of 1995 filed by the respondent No. 2 against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority was also dismissed. Proceeding under section 23 of the Act was initiated by the landlord wherein the petitioner has filed his objections. The petitioner has also filed appeal under section 22 of the Act against the order of the Prescribed Authority being Appeal No. 471 of 1995. The aforesaid appeal has been rejected by the impugned order dated 17.7.1995 holding therein that an appeal at the instance of the petitioner who is a third party and was not a party to the proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of the Act cannot be entertained and is not maintainable.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is seen that the petitioner has raised his claim to be a tenant of the shop in dispute in his own and independent right by virtue of an agreement entered into between him and the landlord on 1.12.1989. The said agreement according to the respondents is forged and fictitious and they denied the execution of the said agreement. Since this controversy cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this matter requires to be considered by the fact finding Court. However, irrespective of aforesaid facts this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Nigam v. District Judge, Kanpur and others : 2001 (43) ALR 647, has held that an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 22 of the Act would include any person who is affected by an order passed under section 21 of the Act and therefore, such aggrieved person was legally entitled to maintain the appeal. In view of aforesaid decision of this Court the claim of the petitioner, on the basis of some agreement of tenancy, and his having been found in possession, ought to have been adjudicated upon by the Appellate Court. Rejection of appeal as not maintainable was clearly illegal.