S.C.Mathur, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the entire proceedings in suit No. 79 of 1991, Laeeq Ahmad v. Smt. Tajwar Jahan and another pending in the Court of Munsif North, Luc know. The petition has arisen in the circumstances hereinafter indicated. The dispute in the petition pertains to House No. 283/23 Katra Abu Turab Khan, Police Station Chowk, Lucknow. Admittedly petitioner No. 1, Smt. Tajwar Jahan, is the owner of the said House. Petitioner No. 2, Mohammad Ali is her husband. Sri Mohd. Yusuf Siddiqui was the tenant of the said House. Petitioner No. 1 filed application under Sec. 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972) for short 'Act', seeking eviction of Sri Mohd. Yusuf Siddiqui. This application was registered as Prescribed Authority Case No. 164 of 1985. The application was allowed by order dated 27th July 1990. Apart from filing application under Section 21 Petitioner No. 1 also filed suit No. 25 of 1988 in the Court of Judge Small Causes for eviction of Sri Mohd. Yusuf Siddiqui from the house in question and for recovery of arrears of rent. This suit was decreed by the trial court on 8th March 1989 for recovery of arrears only. The decree for ejectment was refused only on the ground that Mohd. Yusuf Siddiqui was no longer in occupation of the house in question. Against this judgment petitioner No. 1 preferred revision under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act complaining against rejection of her claim for eviction of Mohd. Yusuf Siddiqui. The revision was allowed by judgment and order dated 13.12.1990. When petitioner No. 1 wanted to put the order and decree for eviction in execution opposite party No. 2 Laeeq Ahmad Siddiqui filed suit in question claiming tenancy rights in himself. A copy of the suit is Annexure -1. In paragraph -3 he admits the tenancy of Sri Mohd. Yusuf Siddiqui. Thereafter he states that the said Mohd. Yusuf Siddiqui purchased a house from the Lucknow Development Authority at Aishbagh Colony, Lucknow and shifted there with bag and baggage on 30th April 1985. In paragraph -4 it is pleaded that after vacation of the house by Sri Mohd. Yusuf Siddiqui it was occupied by his sister Smt. Karimunnisan and her son Sri Zubair Ahmad. These two persons tried to obtain tenancy rights from petitioner No. 1 who did not agree to the request. It is claimed that in view of the fact that petitioner No. 1 did not accede to the request of Smt. Karimunnisan and Sri Zubair Ahamd they vacated the house in question in March 1986. After making this assertion opposite party No. 2 claims tenancy rights in his favour by making the following averments in paragraph -5: - - That the plaintiff came into the possession of the house in suit in the month of June 1986 in his independent rights and is residing therein alongwith his family and except the plaintiff and his family members including his wife Smt. Shaheen Laiq and daughters Km. Afreen Laiq and Ambreen Laiq, there is no one residing in the house in suit since June 1986.
(2.) IN paragraph -6 it is claimed that dispute arose between petitioner No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 in respect of rate of rent, the petitioner No. 1 demanding Rs. 300/ - and opposite party No. 2 offering Rs. 100/ -. Opposite party No. 2 claims that on account of this dispute petitioner No. 1 now wants to dispossess him from the house in question in the execution of the order and decree obtained by petitioner No. 1. In paragraph 13 it is claimed that on 3rd March 1991, petitioner No. 1 came to the residence of opposite party No. 2 and asked him either to concede to pay Rs. 300/ - per month as rent or vacate the house in question. The threat of eviction, opposite party No. 2 claims, caused him anxiety and he started making efforts to know the strength on the basis of which the threat was being extended and then he acquired knowledge of the orders of eviction obtained by petitioner No. 1 against Sri Mohd. Yusuf Siddiqui. On these facts opposite party No. 2 filed the suit, which has given rise to the present writ petition, claiming a decree for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners from evicting him from the house in question under the garb of the order dated 27th July 1990 passed in Prescribed Authority Case No. 164 of 1985 and the decree dated 8.3.1989 passed in Small Causes Court Suit No. 25 of 1988 as modified by the judgment dated 13.12.1990 passed in Small Causes Revision No. 121 of 1989. In the aforesaid suit opposite party No. 2 filed application for interim injunction also. The petitioners opposed the injunction application but their objection failed and the trial court passed interim injunction restraining the petitioners from dispossessing opposite party No. 2 otherwise than in due course of law.
(3.) ON the face of it the order of the court below appears to be innocuous in -as -much as it requires the petitioners to take recourse to court of law for evicting opposite party No. 2 but the context in which the order has been passed makes it apparent that opposite party No. 2 cannot be evicted in execution of the orders obtained by petitioner No. 1 in the proceedings under Sec. 21 and in the suit for eviction.;