ANIL KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Manish Kumar , learned counsel for opposite party no.1 , Sri P.S. Mehra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Murtaza H. Khan learned counsel for opposite parties no. 5 and 6.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.2.2009 ( Annexure no.2) passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ City Magistrate, Lucknow and order dated 14.5.2010 ( Annexure no.1) passed by Additional District Jude, Court no.13 , District Lucknow. Controversy in the present case relates to ground floor of house no. 80/22/1, Bansmandi Gurudwara road, Police Station Naka Hiindola , Lucknokw known as 11 Devendrapuri, Lucknow. ( hereinafter referred to as ' premises in question') Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises in question belongs to Late Pandit B.M. Tripathi and as per his will , a society has been constituted known as Late Pandit B.M. Tripathi Memorial Society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, bearing registration no. 265 of 1987 -88 having its registered office at House No. H -1 Near Law College Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi , thereafter in the year 1999 Society has given ground floor/ premises in question in the tenancy of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially in respect to premises in question, allotment application has been moved by one Smt. Purinder Kaur Oberoi. Accordingly a case no. 419 of 1999 was registered before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ City Magistrate, Lucknow. In the said matter, Smt. Veena Shukla/ opposite party no.4, Secretary of the society, given a statement that premises in question belongs to society as such provisions under Section 2(1) (f) of the U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting , Rent and Eviction ) Act 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as an 'Act'), are not applicable, so the application for allotment moved by Smt. Purinder Kaur Oberoi is liable to be rejected accordingly by order dated 13.8.1999 Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ City Magistrate, Lucknow rejected the said application.
(3.) THEREAFTER due to financial constraint, a decision was taken by the Society to sold house in which premises in question lies for the said purpose, Smt. Veena Shukla/ Secretary of the Society sought permission from the Competent Authority/ District Judge, Varanasi but not accorded. In spite of the said fact by virtue of sale deed dated 30.6.2006 ( C.A -1) she sold the house in question to Smt. Amar Tripathi / opposite party no.2 without any authority thus the said act is a fraudulent one on the part of opposite party no.4 on the basis of sale deed Smt. Amar Tripathi/opposite party no.2 moved an application for release of premises in question under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. A case has been registered as case no. 138 of 2008 (Smt. Amar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P.) before opposite party no.1. In the said matter, on behalf of the petitioner an objection was taken that as per provisions of Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act, release application not maintainable because premises in question belongs to society, further sale deed executed by Smt. Veena Shukla in favour of opposite party no.2 is an act which amount to a fraud so the proceedings of release on the basis of sale -deed are without jurisdiction, liable to be dismissed. 6. Opposite parties no. 5 and 6 (Smt. Neha Baijal and Smt. Meenu Baijal) also filed objection before opposite party no.1 that an agreement of sale dated 29.10.1999 has been executed by Smt. Veena Shukla/ opposite party no.4 in their favour in respect to the house in which premises in question exist. So the proceedings of release application is not maintainable in view of the said facts.;