- (1.) V. M. Sahai, J. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Som Narain Mishra appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
(2.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 9-2-1987 for releasing the shop in dispute on the ground that it was required by them for establishing Suresh Kumar in business and the need was bona fide and genuine. In the application the respondents also mentioned the details as to how they have became owner of the property in dispute. Mohan Lal, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 to 4 who was tenant of the premises contested the release application on the ground that since title of the landlord is in dispute therefore, unless the dispute is decided the release application is not maintainable. While the release application was pending, Original Suit No. 66 of 1987 was filed by Krishna Chandra Sharma against Om Prakash and others claiming title to the property in dispute. In this suit a compromise was arrived at between Krishna Chandra Sharma and Om Prakash and others which was accepted by the Civil Court. As per the compromise the rent which was deposited under Section 30 (2) of the Act was to be paid to Sri Krishna Chandra Sharma and thereafter the respondents were given right to realise the rent from Mohan Lal. It was further provided that respondents were owners of the premises in dispute. After the compromise decree was passed on 24-5-1993, tenant Mohan Lal offered to pay rent to respondents 3 and 4 but it was not accepted by them. Therefore, Mohan Lal deposited the rent under Section 30 (2) of the Act. An amendment application was filed by respondents 3 and 4 before the Prescribed Authority for amending the release application bringing on record that the shop in dispute was required to establish Mukesh Siddh son of Suresh Kumar in business of steel utensils. The application was allowed and the order has become final. Thereafter, the Prescribed Authority considered the release application and found Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to be the landlord of the premises in dispute. He further recorded a finding that need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine and the landlord would suffer greater hardship than that of the tenant and the release application was allowed by order dated 11-12-1997. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed on 5-8- 2002.
(3.) SRI Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel urged that application of the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not maintainable because the landlord's title was in dispute and unless the dispute was decided by the competent Civil Court, respondents 3 and 4 could not move release application under the Act. He further urged that compromise decree passed subsequent to the release application was a collusive decree and was in the nature of sale-deed which will not confer any title on respondents 3 and 4. He lastly urged that the findings recorded by the Court below on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship is perverse. On the other hand, SRI Rajesh Tandon learned Senior Counsel has supported the judgment passed by the Court below. The release application was filed by the landlord in which he has also mentioned the details as to how he became the landlord. Krishna Chandra Sharma disputed his title and filed original suit. In the suit a compromise was arrived at between the parties and it was held that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are owners of the premises in dispute and the rent which was deposited under Section 30 (2) of the Act had to be paid to Krishna Chandra Sharma. The argument of Sri Jain that since the title of the landlord was in dispute, the release application was not maintainable cannot be accepted. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were claiming the title on the basis of Will-deed. If they have mentioned in detail as to how they had become the owner of the property in dispute, that cannot render the application not maintainable. Subsequently, in Original Suit No. 66 of 1987 by means of the compromise the title dispute raised by Krishna Chandra who was also claiming on the basis of will came to an end and it was held that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were the owners. Therefore, in my opinion it cannot be said that release application filed by the petitioner prior to the compromise decree, was not maintainable.;