PUNNI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THE two petitions arise out of the same impugned orders and involve similar controversy of fact and law and hence it is convenient to dispose of them by a common judgment.

(3.) AFTER the possession was delivered, an application under Sec. 4 of the Act was filed by respondent no. 1 against petitioners nos. 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9 (of Writ Petition No. 8850 of 1979) who were occupying the servants quarters as licensee of the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1101 of 1980, who claimed as the tenants of half of Bungalow no. 18 including the servants quarters. Separate notices were served on respondents 4 to 8 of Writ Petition No. 1101 of 1980. It was alleged in the application under Section 4 of the Act that the tenancy was created by the Panchayati Akhara, Daraganj in favour of Keshav Dayal, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners of Writ No. 1101 of 1980. But after possession was delivered to the respondent no. 1 on 25-3-1976, the possession of the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 8850 of 1979 became unauthorised within the meaning of Sec. 2 (g) of the Act.