HARISH CHANDRA Vs. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.2.1993 passed by Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 4, releasing the disputed building in favour of respondent No. 3 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) and the order passed by respondent No. 1, dated 1.8.1995, dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order. The fact5 in brief, are that Kunwar Singh Gaur, respondent No. 2 purchased the disputed building from one Shanti Devi by registered sale deed dated 26.12.1980. One Jagan Nath was a tenant in the disputed accommodation. He sent a notice on him on 23.2.1984, indicating that he has purchased the property and requires the accommodation. The notice was served on him on 13.3.1984. Another notice was given by him on 4.4.1984 and that was served on 7.4.1984. After service of notice respondent No. 2 filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act in the year 1984 for release of the disputed accommodation impleading Jagannath Vishwakarma and the petitioner as opposite parties in the application. It was stated by him that he had purchased the disputed accommodation from Smt. Shanti Devi on 26.12.1980. Jagannath Vishwakarma was tenant. He illegally passed on possession to the petitioner. It was stated that he requires the disputed accommodation for residential purpose as there were seven members in his family and the accommodation in his possession is insufficient. The petitioner filed objection. It was stated by him that the property in dispute belonged to Smt. Ram Janki Devi, Smt. Shanti Devi Tiwari was its Sarbarakar. She had let out the accommodation to him in the year 1969 and it was denied that he had obtained the possession from Jagan Nath.

(2.) THE Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that Jagan Nath was living as tenant of Smt. Shanti Devi and the petitioner had taken possession from him and he was liable for eviction. The need of the landlord was found to be bona fide and genuine. The application for release was allowed by order dated 1.8.1995. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order and respondent No. 1 dismissed the appeal on 31.8.1995. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE first submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that Shanti Devi was not owner of the property. The petitioner has obtained the sale deed from one Shanti Devi who was not the owner of this property. The owner of this property is Ram Laxman Janki and Shiv Virajman Mandir. It is contended that Suit No. 144 of 1979 was filed by Ram Laxman janki and Shiv Virajman Mandir through Shanti Devi, wife of Ram Prakash Tripathi for declaration that it is owner of premises No. 119/439, Darshanpurwa, Kanpur. The suit is still pending. The question of title was not to be decided in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act.