- (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer that a writ of certiorari may be issued quashing the order dated 8.12.2009 passed by the opposite party No. 1, contained as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition. The brief facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are that Sri Sitaram Agarwal and others, moved an application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against Nawal Kishore Agarwal (registered as P.A. Case No. 08 of 2007, Sitaram Agarwal and others v. Nawal Kishore Agarwal, with the prayer that the opposite party may be evicted from the premises in question, as detailed and described in the Schedule of property, mentioned at the foot of application, and the same may be released in favour of the applicants on the ground that the applicants are the owners/landlords of building No. 215/81-82 Subhash Marg, P.S. Chowk, Lucknow, which they have purchased through registered sale-deed dated 11.6.2001 from Raj Pal Singh and Ratan Singh, sons of late Baldev Prasad, Smt. Susheela Saxena W/o. late Raman Singh and Nagendra Singh, S/o. late Raman Singh, residents of Pandey Bazar, District-Gonda. The property purchased by the applicants is a double storied building containing residential and non-residential portion and the said building is about 100 years old, and some portions of it, have been cracked. A shop on the ground floor of the building No. 215/81, Subhash Marg, P.S. Chowk, Lucknow, was allotted in favour of the opposite party in the year 1963, on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- by the office of Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The major portion of said building No. 215/81-82, was in the tenancy of Smt. Munni Devi W/o. Laxmi Narain Gupta, which consists of one room at entrance and three rooms, two verandahs, Courtyard, latrine and a godown on the ground floor and on the first floor, there were four rooms and two small rooms, verandah, latrine and bathroom and she used to utilise the same for manufacturing Tobacco and used to reside in the upper portion. In the year 1972, the entire accommodation, which was in the tenancy of Smt. Munni Devi, was allotted in favour of opposite party, Nawal Kishore Agarwal, by the Area Rationing Officer vide allotment order No. 38/C1/72, in case of Vishan Chand and others v. Nawal Kishore, and by virtue of allotment order, the opposite party became tenant of a portion of said accommodation @ Rs. 70/- per month. The father of opposite party, late Bhagwan Das, was the exclusive owner/landlord of building No. 253/134, Nehru Cross, Rakabganj, Lucknow, which is a triple storied building. After the death of Sri Bhagwan Das, as per his registered Will, the said property was devolved into three families, i.e., three sons, namely, Nawal Kishore, Ratan Lal and Chhotey Lal(now deceased). The portions given to his three sons were shown in the map enclosed with the will deed. The families of all the three brothers used to reside jointly in building No. 253/134, Nehru Cross, Rakabganj, Lucknow. Due to some family disputes and unavoidable circumstances, the relations between the applicants and the opposite party became strained and the opposite party started living in house No. 215/81-82, Subhash Marg, Lucknow, and was also doing business from the said house. The rent of building No. 215/82, Subhash Marg, Lucknow, was being paid by opposite party to previous owners/landlords earlier, against the valid rent receipts and after the property was purchased by applicants, the rent was being paid by him to the applicants against the rent receipts and the relationship of landlords and tenant was established between the parties. The applicants made a request to opposite party to vacate and handover the peaceful vacant possession of said premises to them so that, they may construct the building as per their personal requirement, but, he did not agree to vacate the premises. The opposite party, for the reasons best known to him, accommodated his younger brother, Sri Ratan Lal, in a portion of the aforesaid premises, may be for safety and security purposes, or for some other purposes. When the opposite party refused to vacate the said premises, a legal notice dated 15th July, 2001, was given to opposite party to vacate the said premises, but, the opposite party has not vacated the said premises even after expiry of six months, and the opposite party in collusion with his younger brother, Ratan Lal Agarwal, has created nuisance in the premises in question. The details of family members of applicants have been mentioned in para 13 of the said application and the accommodation is urgently required for residential as well as business purposes for all the 25 family members of the applicants and their need for accommodation in question is bona fide. The opposite party and his younger brother/Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, have alternative accommodation and in case of their eviction, they would have no inconvenience. The applicants would suffer greater hardship than the opposite party, if the accommodation in question is not released in their favour.
(2.) The opposite party has filed written statement and has admitted that applicants have purchased the disputed property through the registered sale-deed in the month of June, 2001, and thereafter, they became the owners of said property and it is a double storied building containing residential portion on the first floor and commercial portion on the ground floor. It is also admitted that he is the tenant of shop @ Rs. 20/- per month since the year 1963. After allotment, he used to make payment of rent @ Rs. 70/- per month to previous landlords, and thereafter, to the applicants and no rent is due against him. He has also admitted that he is residing at the premises No. 215/81-82, Subhash Marg, Lucknow, but, he is not in a position to vacate the said accommodation as he has no other alternative accommodation. He has accommodated his younger brother, Ratan Lal Agarwal, in his residential as well as commercial accommodation from the security point of view and on account of it, the applicants would not be able to eject him forcibly. There are three shops on the ground floor of house No. 253/134, Nehru Cross, Rakabganj, Lucknow, and one of the said shops, is in occupation of his younger brother, Ratan Lal Agarwal.
(3.) During pendency of said proceedings, an application under section 34 and Rule 22(f) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, was moved on behalf of the applicant, Ratan Lal Agarwal, with the prayer that he may be impleaded in the array of opposite party on the ground that Sri Raj Pal Singh, Sri Ratan Singh, Smt. Susheela Saxena and Nagendra Singh, residents of Mohalla-Pandey Bazar, District Gonda, were the owners/landlords of building No. 215/81-82, situated at Subhash Marg, P.S. Chowk, Lucknow, and the applicant is in occupation of said premises, as detailed and described in para 1 of the said application, as tenant @ Rs. 108/- per month including all taxes, since the month of August, 1969. Sri Raj Pal Singh, one of the co-owners/co-landlords used to collect the monthly rent of the portion under tenancy of the applicant, but, he never issued rent receipt in lieu thereof. He paid rent to Sri Raj Pal Singh till 10.6.2001, and thereafter, he did not accept monthly rent on the pretext that they are going to sell the building under the tenancy of applicant. On 18.7.2005, Sri Hari Om Agarwal, applicant No. 2, sent a registered notice through his Counsel, Sri S.K. Srivastava, informing about the purchase of aforesaid building No. 215/81-82 situated at Subhash Marg, P.S. Chowk, Lucknow, by him alongwith his brothers, Sitaram Agarwal, Sri Arun Kumar Agarwal, Sri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and his nephew, Sri Ashish Kumar Agarwal, i.e., applicant Nos. 1 & 3 to 5, respectively, through registered sale-deed dated 11.6.2001, from Sri Raj Pal Singh and others, and also demanded rent from the applicant for the period 11.6.2001 to 10.7.2005, amounting to Rs. 5,292/- @ Rs. 108/- per month. On 26.7.2005, the applicant sent arrears of rent from 11.6.2001 to 10.7.2005, through money-order to applicant No. 2, Hari Om Agarwal, but, he refused to receive the rent. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application for deposit of rent in the Court of Civil Judge, North (Jr. Div.), Lucknow, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 132 of 2005, Ratan Lal Agarwal v. Sitaram Agarwal and others, and deposited rent in the said case through tender. The matter for deposit of monthly rent is sub judice in writ petition No. 38(R/C) of 2006, Ratan Lal Agarwal v. Civil Judge, North (Jr. Division), Lucknow and others, preferred by the applicant in this Court. The applicants, illegally and forcibly want to dispossess/evict the applicant from the tenanted accommodation. The applicant filed R.S. No. 124 of 2006, for perpetual injunction along-with an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. on 2.5.2006 against the applicants of the said case, but, the said application was rejected vide order dated 8.3.2007. The applicant preferred a Misc. Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2007 against the said order dated 8.3.2007, and vide order dated 2.4.2007, the District Judge, Lucknow, restrained the applicants of the said case from dispossessing the applicant from his tenanted accommodation. The opposite party of the said case is the real father of the applicants, who was in occupation of a portion of the aforesaid house as tenant, since the time of previous landlords. The applicants of the said case in collusion with the opposite party, has filed the case for ejectment including accommodation which is under the tenancy and occupation of the applicant since 1969, and the said applicants want to evict the applicant from the tenanted accommodation after obtaining eviction order fraudulently and illegally, against the opposite party. In order to enable the Prescribed Authority effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the matters in the controversy between parties in the case, it is necessary that the applicant, Ratan Lal Agarwal, should be impleaded in the array of opposite party. If he is not impleaded in the array of opposite party, the applicant would suffer an irreparable loss and legal injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money.;