Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 1 allowing the application filed by the landlord-respondent No. 2 for delivery of possession of the disputed shop.
(2.) Priya Dutt, respondent No. 2, the landlord of the shop in dispute filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (in short the Act) for release of the disputed shop against the petitioner-tenant with the allegations that he requires the disputed shop bona fide. The petitioner entered into compromise on 16.2.1985 wherein he admitted that the landlord-respondent No. 2 bona fide needs the disputed shop for the purpose of business but he stated that he may be permitted to continue to carry on business for life as he was aged about 62 years and was a patient of diabetes and blood pressure. There was a further clause in the compromise that in case the tenant sub-lets it or accepts any person as a partner, it will be open to the landlord to take immediate possession of the shop in question. The Prescribed Authority decided the application in terms of the compromise on 26.7.1985.
(3.) Respondent No. 2 filed application under Section 23 of the Act on 29.9.1993 with the allegations that the petitioner had sub-let the shop in question to respondent No. 3 and he was entitled to obtain possession from him in terms of the compromise as accepted by the Court vide its order dated 16.2.1985. The petitioner-submitted objection taking the plea that the application was not maintainable. He further denied that he had sub-let the shop in question to respondent No. 3. The application has been allowed by the Prescribed Authority by the impugned order dated 22.7.1996 directing the petitioner to hand over the possession on the finding that the petitioner had passed on possession of the disputed shop to respondent No. 3 exclusively.;