R.B. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 23 -7 -1985 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi declaring premises No. S -18/2 -A, situate at Raja Bazar, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the premises) in releasing the premises in dispute in favour of the respondents -landlord and the order, dated 6 -4 -1986 issuing a direction to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute in the prescribed Form 'C' under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The facts necessary for decision of the writ petition, in brief, art, that the premises in dispute was earlier in occupation of the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Northern Railway and was being used as an office of the aforesaid authority. The premises was vacated by the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Northern Railway. Thereafter an application was moved on behalf of Maharaja Kashi Naresh Sri Vibhuti Narayan, Singh on behalf of his son Maharaja Kumar Anant Narayan Singh, minor at the relevant time. By order, dated 6 -6 -1977, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi released the premises in dispute in favour of the landlord for the purposes of using it for doing Hotel business. Thereafter on 17th of August, 1979, an agreement was entered into between Maharaja Kumar Anant Narayan Singh, owner of the premises I party, Maharaj Kumari Vishnu Priya and others as lessor II party and M/s. Cottage Industries Exposition Private Ltd., as III party. The agreement provided that the II party has taken the property on lease for the purpose of setting up a Handicraft Museum and the HI party is desirous of setting up of a Handicraft Business in the premises in dispute on terms and conditions agreed upon and the II party is desirous of getting a lease. The I party has no objection if the II party leases the property in favour of III party. On the basis of the aforesaid agreement, the present petitioner was inducted in the premises in dispute as a lessee thereof. The terms of the agreement are not relevant for the controversy in the present writ petition as such are not being detailed. The agreement contemplated that the I party is the owner of the property and in case for any reason the tenancy of the II party terminates in law, the tenancy created in favour of III party shall be allowed to continue and deemed with the I party on the terms and conditions of the deed.
(2.) THE agreement contemplated that the lease will be for the entire Hall and for the adjoining room of the house known as 'Mint House Hail' in the first flooR.The rent will be charged according to the rent settled between II and III parties amounting to Rs. 15,000 per month for the building and Rs. 2,500 for the publicity and for advertisement for user and service charges. The rent shall start from 1st of December, 1979. The rent was contemplated to be paid in advance and it is alleged that first month's rent was realised by the lessor's on 1st of December, 1979. It is stated in the writ petition that subsequent thereto on 20 -1 -1980, one Farooq Ahmed moved an application for allotment of the premises in dispute in his favouR.Subsequent thereto another application was filed by one Syed Hussain for the allotment of the premises in dispute in his favour.
(3.) ON 10 -4 -1931, an application was moved to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi which was signed by Maharaja Kumar Anant Narayan Singh as partner of the Mint House. In this application, it was alleged that the first floor of the premises which was got vacated from the Northern Railway is being used by applicant No. 1 as partner of the Hotel and applicant No. 2, namely, Ms. Cottage Industries Exposition Private Ltd. for exhibition and business of Handicrafts. It was stated therein that the premises had been let out at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per month as rent and Rs. 2,700 per month for advertisement etc. It was prayed that the tenancy may be regularised at the rate of rent settled between the parties. This application was clearly for the regularisation of the agreement entered into between the respondent -landlord and the petitioneR.The said application was registered as Case No. 45 of 1981 whereas the application for allotment made on behalf of Farooq Ahmed was registered as Case No. 8 of 1981. The counter -affidavit discloses that on behalf of the Cottage Industries Expositions, appearance has been put in by Sri A.K. Chaterjee Advocate and Sri Ram Naresh Tripathi, Advocate in case No. 8, of 1981, Farooq Ahmad v. Maharaja Anant Narayan Singh. In this case several applications were made on behalf of the petitioner seeking adjournment in the case on one ground or the otheR.On 23 -7 -1985, in case No. 45 of 1981, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the premises in dispute to be vacant.;