SIDHESHWARI TIWARI Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY MUNSIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This petition arises out of very peculiar circumstances.

(2.) THE property in dispute is house no. 5 situate in Mohalla Mahuabagh, Ghazipur. Smt. Sidheshwari Tiwari, the petitioner, is the landlady of the said premises. She filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority. Her case was that she was residing with her husband, who is occupying a Government building in the opium factory situate at Ghazipur and that her husband was about to retire after completing 54 years of service and, consequently, she required the accommodation in dispute for her personal need. This application was filed on 14th April, 1982, against Kalika Prasad Singh, respondent no. 2 who, according to her, was the tenant in the premises in suit.

(3.) WHEN this application was filed, the Prescribed Authority issued notices on the same and, thereafter, on 27th July, 1984, Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of Kalika Prasad Singh and sons, Sanjiv Kumar Singh and Rajiv Kumar Singh filed objections to the enforcement of the release order. In the objections, the case taken up by the wife and sons of Kalika Prasad Singh was that Kalika Prasad Singh was never the tenant of the property and in fact, they were the tenants of the property and since they were not made party to the release application, the same cannot be enforced. The petitioner filed a reply to the objections of respondents 3 to 5 and clearly stated before the Prescribed Authority that in fact, only Kalika Prasad Singh was the tenant and respondents 3 to 5 are wife and sons of Kalika Prasad Singh and they have only been set up to obstruct the enforcement of the release order. The Prescribed Authority, however, by the judgment dated 14th September, 1984, allowed the objections of respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner-landlady, has now challenged the order dated 14th September, 1984, by means of the present petition in this Court.