ANGURI DEVI Vs. IIND ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE PRATAPGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for Issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 12.4.1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority dismissing the release application of the petitioner in exercise of powers under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (For short the Act) and order dated 27.7.1985 passed by the appellate authority under the Act dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties 1 and 2 to proceed and decide the release application of the petitioner on merit has also been made.

(2.) It appears that petitioner who happens to be the landlady of shop No. 1/10, Chowk Ghantaghar. Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as the shop in dispute) filed an application for release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act against respondent No. 3 who is the tenant in the shop in dispute.

(3.) In brief it was pleaded by the petitioner that shop in dispute was purchased by her through registered sale-deed dated 17.5.1978 from Raja Ajit Pratap Singh. Since the shop in dispute was needed for residential and business purposes by the petitioner, therefore, after serving a notice and on expiry of statutory period, application for release of shop in dispute was filed before the Prescribed Authority. Respondent No. 3 opposed and contested the release application, pleading that sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner was invalid as the shop in dispute was a part of Raja Pratap Bahadur Charitable Trust and was situated on Nazul land and, therefore, Raja Ajit Pratap Singh who became the Manager of the said Trust had no right to transfer of the shop in dispute in favour of the petitioner. It was pleaded that shop in dispute was let out by Raja Pratap Bahadur Singh to Shri Mahadeo Prasad, the father of the respondent No. 3. Raja Ajit Pratap Singh used to realise the rent and between the parties there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant. It was also pleaded that the need of the petitioner for the shop in dispute was not bona fide and genuine.