MANOJ SINGH Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE UNNAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. This writ petition has been heard and disposed of in the open Court today. My reasons for dismissing the writ petition are as follows : Heard Mohammad Saeed, learned Counsel for the petitioners, tenants and Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, landlord.

(2.) THE petitioners have assailed the orders dated 23-6-2003 and 7-7-2003 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/city Magistrate in Case No. 7 of 2000 under Section 16 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and the order dated 16-4-2004, passed by the Additional District Judge, Unnao in Rent Revision No. 55 of 2004.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there was a contract of tenancy between the petitioners and the landlord, Sri Aditya Prakash Sharma. THEy were not strangers but permitted to continue in the premises in dispute. THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments in Nutan Kumar & Ors. v. IInd Additional District Judge & Ors. , 2002 (49) ALR 251, Nanak Ram v. Kundal Rai, (1986) 3 SCC 83; Dharam Pal Jairath v. Additional District Judge & Ors. , 2004 (1) JCLR 1044 (All) (LB) : 2004 (1) ARC 60 and Munna Lal Agarwal v. R. C. and E. O. Mathura, 2005 (1) ARC 144 : 2005 (1) JCLR 397 (All) in support of his submissions. As per the petitioners' learned Counsel, both the orders were without jurisdiction. It was a case where relations of landlord and tenant were existing between the parties. THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the landlord had also sent a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and instituted a Suit No. 3 of 2001 on 6-2-2001 for ejectment of the petitioners and recovery of arrears of rent.