S.R.SINGH, J. - (1.) PRESENT petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20.5.1990 (Annexure 17 of the writ petition) passed by the Prescribed Authority/II Addl Civil Judge, Bareilly thereby releasing the premises in question in favour of respondent No. 3 under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as 'Rent Act') and the order dated 23.3.1991) (Annexure 19 to the writ petition) passed by IV Addl. District Judge, Bareilly thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioners preferred against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 28.5.1990.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the premises in dispute is a shop situate at Bara, Bazar Darzi Chauk, in the town of Bareilly. The shop is in the occupation of the petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs. 135/- in addition to Rs. 13.50 per month as water tax. One Smt. Kokila Devi, widow of Sri Ram Gopal Gupta, resident of Khairilla Street was admittedly the owner/landlady of the premises in dispute. The aforesaid Smt. Kokila Devi died on 27th April, 1989. Smt. Uma Agarwal, respondent No. 3 is the daughter of aforesaid Smt. Kokila Devi. The application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the respondent No. 3 claiming herself to be the owner/landlady of the premises in dispute on the basis of registered Will dated 22.9.1981 having been allegedly executed in her favour by Smt. Kokila Devi. It was alleged in the application for release of the premises that the premises in dispute was bonafide required by the landlady in order to establish her unemployed son Mahesh Agarwal who wanted to start the business of electronic goods in the shop in dispute, as also to house the chamber of her Advocate husband. The application for release was opposed by the petitioner inter alia on the grounds that the applicant's husband was a practising lawyer well established at Allahabad and that he was not practising law at Bareilly and that the shop in question was not needed by the applicant for use by her husband and the son. It was further alleged in the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner that the applicant's family was well settled at Allahabad where her husband was established as a practising lawyer. It was further pleaded that the application for release being false, frivolous and fictitious was liable to be rejected. The title of the applicant-landlady was not specifically denied by the petitioner. All that was said in respect of the Will was that the applicant be put to strict proof of the Will relied upon by her.
(3.) IN support of her case, the respondent No. 3 filed the original Will dated 22.9.1981 besides some other documents and the affidavits including the affidavit of Rajendra Kumar Gupta, an attesting witness of the Will, besides her own affidavit and affidavits of other witnesses of hers including those who derived benefits under the Will.;