MOHARRAM ALI Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard petitioners' counsel and learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 as well as the learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) Some of the undisputed facts are that the landlord-petitioners filed an application for the release under Section 21(l)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority against Mohd. Farooq respondent No. 2, real brother of respondents No. 3'and 4. The application for release of the landlord-petitioners was allowed and the appeal filed by the respondent.No. 2 tenant was also dismissed on 22.7.1984. Thereafter Mohd. Farooq-respondent No. 2 filed writ petition No. 14615 of 1984. The said writ petition was dismissed on merits on 22.11.1984 and an undertaking was given on behalf of the tenant-Mohd. Farooq that he would vacate the building in question within six months. When the undertaking given by the tenant was not respected, the petitioner moved a contempt petition in this court as well, as filed an application under Section 23 of the Act of the enforcement of the release order and for obtaining possession of the house in question. When the occasion to enforce the order arose, for the first time at this stage respondent Nos. 3 and 4 objected to the delivery of possession and they filed civil suit against the petitioner for an injunction restraining him from evicting them otherwise than in due course of law, A prayer for interim injunction was also made in that suit which was refused by the trial court. In the appeal filed by respondents No. 3 and 4, a temporary injunction was granted in their favour which was challenged by the petitioner in this court in a writ petition. In that writ petition which is also connected with this writ petition, an interim order was passed that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 may put their grievances in the form of objections before the court executing the release order under Section 23 of the Act. The respondents No. 3 and 4 then filed objections inter alia pleading that in the house in question their father; Rahim Buksh was the original tenant and upon his death, tenancy was devolved upon his three sons namely Mohd. Farooq respondent No. 2, Mohd. Siddiq-respondent No. 3 and Mohd. All-respondent No. 4 arid since they were not impleaded as parties in the release application moved by the petitipner, the release order obtained by the petitioner was not binding upon them and they could not be evicted in execution thereof. In the impugned order the learned Prescribed Authority accepted this objection of the respondents No. 3 and 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court in this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even accepting the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority, at best it could be said that the respondents No. 3 and 4 inherited tenancy rights of their father as joint tenants alongwith Mohd. Farooq-respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the order passed in the release application moved earlier is also binding upon them.