R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 29.1.2000 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the objection filed by the petitioner that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant, was rejected by the Prescribed Authority.
(2.) IT appears that the contesting respondents No. 1 to 3 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'), against the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority. On receipt of notices from the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed an objection contending that there excised no relation of landlord and tenant between the parties. The occupation of the petitioner of the building in dispute was in contravention with the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act, therefore, the application filed by the landlord was legally not maintainable. In Paragraph 28 of the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority, he has admitted that the building in question was taken on rent by the petitioner on 1.4.1976 on the rent of Rs. 60 per month which was enhanced from Rs. 60 to Rs. 200 per month in the year 1980. The Prescribed Authority relying upon the decision in Shankar Lal Khandelwal v. A.D.J., Mathura : 1998 (2) ARC 506, held that the petitioner who has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, was estopped from contending that there existed no relationship 6i landlord and tenant and dismissed the objection by judgment and order, dated 29.1.2000, hence the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question as to whether there existed relation of landlord and tenant, the Prescribed Authority had the jurisdiction to decide the same on the basis of the facts stated in the release application. The Prescribed Authority referring any relying upon the statement of fact in the written statement filed by the petitioner acted illegally in dismissing the objection filed by the petitioner by the impugned order.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. The question as to whether there existed relation between the landlord and tenant was a question of fact which could be decided on the basis of pleadings and proofs of the parties. The authority below, therefore, had the jurisdiction to decide the said question. In Paragraph 28 of the written statement, as stated above, it was specifically pleaded that the building in question was let out to the petitioner on 1.4.1976 at the rate of Rs. 60 per month. The copy of the written statement has deliberately not been filed alongwith the writ petition.;