- (1.) This petition at the instance of the landlord has been filed for quashing of the order dated 15-12-1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, by which his release application has been dismissed Parties have exchanged affidavits and, therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
(2.) Landlord-Petitioners filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the premises bearing no A/12 Shanti Nagar, Cantt. Kanpur, which is in occupation of Smt Raj Kumari Singh, Respondent No. 2, on the ground that the same was required for their persona! need. The release application was allowed and the premises were released in favour of the landlords of the Prescribed Authority by judgment and order dated 8-7-1988. The tenant-Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. In the appeal the tenant moved an application for amendment of her written statement wherein a new plea was taken that the said building was let out to her by the landlords without any allotment order and as such she could not be deemed to be a tenant and the release application filed by the landlords under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was not maintainable The learned Additional District Judge accepted the plea raised by the tenant and held that as she was let out the building without any allotment order the proper remedy for the landlords was to file an application under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act and the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was not maintainable.
(3.) Shri S.P. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has submitted that even if the building was let out to Respondent No. 2 Without any allotment order the contract of tenancy was binding upon her and it was not open to her to contend that she was not a tenant of the building in proceedings for release under Section 21(1) of the Act and the view to the contrary taken by the learned Add). District Judge was patently erroneous in law Shri Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, has on the other hand contended that as the building was let out without any allotment order, in law, it would be deemed to be vacant and the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was not maintainable and the landlord could only approach the District Magistrate under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act.;