- (1.) S. P. Mehrotra, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter- alia, seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 23-7-1980 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Etawah (Respondent No. 1 ).
(2.) THE dispute relates to the upper portion of house in Kasba Dibiapur, Pargana Auraiya, district Etawah. THE said upper portion has, hereinafter, been referred to as "the disputed portion". It appears that Beni Ram, Respondent No. 2 filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short "the Act") against Shyam Sundar, Respondent No. 3 for the release of the disputed portion. It was, inter- alia, stated by the said Beni Ram, Respondent No. 2 in the said release application that he (Respondent No. 2) was the owner of the said house situate in Kasba Dibiapur Pargana Auraiya, District Etawah which was a two storyed house; and that in the ground floor portion of the said house, the Respondent No. 2 was residing, while in the disputed portion on the upper floor, the said Shyam Sundar (Respondent No. 3) was the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- and that the Respondent No. 2 had bona- fide need for additional accommodation; and that the Respondent No. 3 had no need of any kind for the disputed portion; and that as the Respondent No. 3 has his own residential house, he could not object to the said release application filed by the Respondent No. 2. The said release application was registered as Release Case No. 53 of 1976. The said Shyam Sundar, Respondent No. 3 contested the said release application, inter-alia, alleging that the (Respondent No. 3) was not the tenant in the disputed portion, and he was never in occupation of the disputed portion as tenant; and that Shahjahan alias Sharda Devi, petitioner was the tenant in the disputed portion since the time of Sukriti Lal, and petitioner was in possession of the disputed portion; and that in fact, the Respondent No. 3 had filed suit for surety for the payment of rent by the petitioner; and that the Respondent No. 3 never required to take the disputed portion on rent, as he was residing with his family in his own house.
(3.) IN view of the denial of contract of tenancy by the said Shyam Sundar (Respondent No. 3) and his claim that the petitioner was the tenant in the disputed portion, the petitioner was impleaded as a party in the said release application. It was, inter- alia, alleged by the said Beni Ram (Respondent No. 2) by amendment in the release application that the petitioner was never the tenant of the Respondent No. 2, nor did the petitioner ever pay any rent to the Respondent No. 2 and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the Respondent No. 2 and the petitioner; and that the petitioner was never the tenant of Sukriti Lal also; and that in 1966 when the Respondent No. 2 got possession of the said house in question, the petitioner was not in occupation of the disputed portion; and that the Respondent No. 3 without any consent of the Respondent No. 2 had allowed the petitioner to occupy the disputed portion as a sub- tenant for the last about one year in violation of law; and that in his statement dated 20-10-1977, in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1977 Sukriti Lal v. Beni Ram, in the Court of IINd Additional Munsif, Etawah, the Respondent No. 3, inter- alia, stated that the petitioner never paid any rent, and that no kirayanama was executed in favour of the petitioner by Sukriti Lal or the Respondent No. 2 and that the Respondent No. 3 continuously paid rent in respect of the disputed portion. A copy of the said release application has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 in the writ petition.;