Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) THE dispute in the present petition mainly relates to the challenge to the order dated 29 -4 -1989 by which the Prescribed Authority, has allowed the impleadment of one Smt. Neeta Pandey, respondent No. 5, claiming to be the transferee from the original landlord/owner of the premises, namely, Radhey Mohan Gaur, respondent No. 2. The case has a chequered history and the subject -matter of dispute is premises No. 361, Badshahi Mandi, Allahabad. It has been alleged that originally one Kanhaiya Lal Gaur and his two sons Radhey Mohan Gaur and Shyam Ji Gaur wee the owner of houses Nos. 350, 355 and 361 situate in Mohalla Badshahi Mandi, Allahabad. By a family partition in 1973, House No. 350 fell exclusively in the share of Kanhaiya Lal and part of houses Nos. 355 and 361 also fell in his share. The remaining parts of House Nos. 355 and 361 fell in the shares of Radhey Mohan Gaur and Shyam Ji Gaur respectively. After the death of Kanhaiya Lal, another family arrangement is alleged to have taken place by which House No. 355 fell to the share of Radhey Mohan Gaur and House No. 361 fell to the share of Shyam Ji Gaur and House No. 350 remained in joint ownership of both of them to the extent of half and half.
(2.) THERE was some litigation also with regard to these properties and in Suit No. 82 of 1978 between Radhey Mohan Gaur and Shyam Ji Gaur, an ex -parte decree dated 22nd January, 1979 was passed declaring Radhey Mohan Gaur as the exclusive owner and in possession of House No. 355. Radhey Mohan Gaur filed another suit No. 34 of 1984 for partition of his half share in Houses Nos. 361 and 350, Badshahi Mandi, Allahabad. This suit as dismissed in default by order dated 14th May, 1986. The House No. 361 which was alleged to be in the ownership of Shyam Ji Gaur was occupied by two tenants Nar Bahadur Singh and Pramod Kumar Srivastava. The portion occupied by Nar Bahadur Singh was declared vacant and was allotted to one Lalta Prasad. The allotment proceedings were challenged by Shyam Ji Gaur claiming to be the landlord and the Revision was allowed and the allotment order was set aside. In the mean time, the disputed property House No. 361 was transferred in favour of the petitioner Smt. Prabhawati Devi by means of sale deed dated 22nd November, 1983 and her name was also mutated in the Nagar Mahapalika records. This portion of the premises was thereafter released by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in favour of the petitioner by order dated 21st August, 1986 filed as Annexure -3 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed another suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the tenant Pramod Kumar Srivastava in respect of the other portion of House No. 361 in his occupation. The Suit No. 245 of 1984 was decreed in her favour by order dated 15 -7 -1985 and she came in possession thereof. The copy of this judgment has been filed as Annexure -5 to the writ petition.
(3.) THE respondent No. 2 Radhey Mohan Gaur again pressed his claim over the property House No. 361 and filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 being Case No. 93 of 1987 against one Anant Ram who alleged to be in occupation of the portion which was earlier vacated by Nar Bahadur Singh and was released in favour of the petitioner by order dated 21 -8 -1986. A compromise was alleged to have arrived at between Radhey Mohan Gaur and Anand Ram Singh on the basis of which the premises was released in favour of Radhey Mohan Gaur by an order dated 5 -1 -1988. A copy of the order has been filed as Annoxure -10. The petitioner Smt. Prabhawati Devi on receiving knowledge of the aforesaid proceedings immediately filed an application on 17 -2 -1988 to set aside the order dated 5 -1 -1988 and for restoration of her possession.;