R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 28.7.2000 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was dismissed by the trial Court and the order dated 7.8.2000 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court below. Validity of the order dated 14.1.1995 has also been challenged, whereby the shop in dispute was released in favour of the contesting respondents.
(2.) IT appears that the respondents No. 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, for release of the shop in dispute in their favour. The said application was objected to and opposed by the petitioner. However, the shop in dispute, i.e., 41/1/10, was released by the Prescribed Authority in favour of respondents No. 3 and 4 by the judgment and order dated 14.1.1995. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1217 of 2000 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Apex Court and filed Special Leave Petition against the judgment and order passed by this Court, which was also dismissed on 11.5.2000. The orders passed by the Prescribed Authority, the Appellate Authority, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have become final. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit for cancellation of the release order and subsequent orders passed by the Prescribed Authority, the Appellate Authority, this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court pleading that the respondents No. 3 and 4 were not the landlords and they have played fraud upon the Courts and upon the petitioner and also for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from ejecting the petitioner from the shop in dispute. The petitioner also filed an application for grant of a temporary injunction. The application filed by the petitioner was objected to and opposed by the contesting respondents No. 3 and 4. It was pleaded that the orders passed in the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act have become final. The petitioner was their tenant and she had no right to deny their title, therefore, no case of fraud against them was at all made out. The trial Court after going through the material on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner had no prima facie case. The questions of balance of convenience and irreparable injury were also decided against her by the trial Court by its judgment and order dated 28.7.2000. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal against Order XLIII Rule 1, C.P.C., alongwith an application for interim relief. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 7.8.2000. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the respondents No. 3 and 4 have played fraud upon the petitioner as well as the Courts. They deliberately did not disclose correct facts and obtained the release order in their favour, therefore, the orders passed in the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act and the subsequent orders passed by the Appellate Authority, this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court were liable to be cancelled. It was further urged that, under the facts and circumstances of the case respondents No. 3 and 4 were liable to be restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner.
(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 supported the validity of the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below. It has been urged that the said orders are based on concurrent findings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on record. It has also been urged that the petitioner has got no right to deny the title of respondents No. 3 and 4 as she was their tenant and has been paying rent to them. It was also contended that the suit filed by the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.;