LALTA PRASAD JAISWAL Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21-1-1994, passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the objection of the petitioner against an application for delivery of possession filed by the landlord- respondent No. 2 under Section 23 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been rejected.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 is landlord of building bearing Municipal No. 989, Muthigani, Allahabad. RESPONDENT No. 3 was admittedly a tenant of the said premises. RESPONDENT No. 2 filed an application for release of the building in question under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on 4-8-1989, on the allegation that the premises in question was let out to respondent No. 3 in the year 1970 for his transport business which was being run in the name and style of M/s. Shiva Ji Transport Company. He used to book goods as well as ply his trucks. At the time of letting out the premises in question respondent No. 2 was in the employment with M/s. Hanuman Prasad and Brothers which used to deal with the business of sale of Indian-made foreign liquors. The firm closed its business on account of heavy losses. The service of the employees including that of landlord-respondent No. 2 were retrenched. He became jobless and now wants to establish himself in business. It was further averred that the tenant-respondent No. 3 illegally accom modated Sri Lalta Prasad (petitioner) who was participating in his trade.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed an application for delivery of possession under Section 23 of the Act in pursuance of the release order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 2nd July, 1991. The petitioner filed objection and it was stated by him that he was a tenant of the premises in question and the order which has been passed against respondent No. 3 is not binding upon him and he cannot be evicted in pursuance of that order. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that the petitioner is not a tenant of the premises in question and rejected the objection of the petitioner by its order dated 21-9-1994.