RAVI S.DHAVAN - (1.) THE petitioner, Raj Kumar Kapoor, occupies an accommodation of which the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 are the owners. THE petitioner, Raj Kumar Kapoor, resists an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 filed by Messers Indra Kumar Bhatia, and Ramesh Kumar Bhatia seeking, in effect, eviction of the petitioner as a tenant occupying the premises at 118/569, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur Nagar. THE application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was numbered as Rent Case No. 86 of 1988 : Indra Kumar Bhatia and another v. Raj Kumar Kapoor and others.
(2.) BEFORE this, the petitioner faced an action by way of Judge Small Causes Suit brought by Smt. Vidyawati Bhatia, Indra Kumar Bhatia, Ramesh Kumar Bhatia and Vinod Kumar Bhatia against Dharmpal Sibbal and Raj Kumar Kapoor. This was Suit No. 737 of 1985. Smt. Vidyawati Bhatia and Vinod Kumar, plaintiffs in the suit, aforesaid, are arrayed as proforma opposite partirs in the application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) The suit before the Judge Small Causes Court was on the allegation that there was a chief tenant, one Dharmpal Sibbal and Raj Kumar Kappor (the petitioner) was the sub-tenant. At some stage the Chief tenant, Dharam- pal Sibbal, as alleged in the suit, left the accommodation leaving the suit pending before the Judge Small Causes Court and the petitioner as defendant no. 2, in the accommodation, being the premises in dispute. This is one aspect of the matter. The release application, the record shows was filed about three years after the suit.
(3.) UPON summons having been served, the petitioner, is resisting the release application on the ground that the release application is not maintainable. The petitioner declines to file his written statement and has been pressing the court of the Prescribed Authority that it must frame and decide a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the release application. That court has, in effect, passed orders, which are impugned in the present writ petition, being the order of 16-8-1990, that whatever be the contention of the petitioner will be considered at the time of hearing. The court was of the view that there is no provision to frame a preliminary issue under U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and non filing of written statement tantamounts to holding up the proceedings. Before this court the arguments are to the effect that an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act is not maintainable against a subtenant. This is an unusal argument as the court put a proposition to learned counsel for the petitioner whether a release application under Section 21 of the Act can ever be maintained by a Chief tenant against a sub-tenant ? A tenant cannot insist that he will reside in an accommodation and challenge the status of a landlord. If a chief tenant is not residing in the accammoda- tion the question does arise on what exactly is the relationship of the petitioner and the owner of the property.;