Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) SMALL Cause Suit No. 32 of 1997 instituted by petitioner claiming himself to be the owner and landlord of House No. 3, Minto Road, Allahabad having been dismissed by Small Cause Court, Allahabad vide judgment dated 21.9.1999 and there against petitioner's Civil Revision No. 1302 of 1999 having been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 17, Allahabad vide judgment dated 5.12.2005, this writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said two judgments and orders and further a mandamus is sought to decree the suit directing eviction of respondent No. 3 from the disputed premises. The brief facts necessary to understand the dispute for proper adjudication are as under.
(2.) THE land over which building in dispute was constructed is a Nazul land, leased out to one Sri H.J. Jokim, vide registered lease deed dated 30.6.1941. The area of leased out land was two acres and two poles, i.e., 8144.03 squire meters. After the death of Sri H.J. Jokim, names of legal heirs were mutated vide Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad's order dated 5.3.1957. The aforesaid lease holders subsequently sought permission which was allowed by Collector, Allahabad vide letter dated 5.7.1957 and the lease rights were transferred, by sale, to Sri G.M. Frank Agrawal; his son, Sri Indrajeet Frank Agrawal, and, daughter, Km. E.M. Frank Agrawal.
(3.) THE names of aforesaid three transferees also mutated in the record of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad vide Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad's order dated 21.9.1957. With the passage of time, Sri G.M. Frank Agrawal and his wife Smt. Ela Ramola Frank Agrawal died, hence the son and daughter of Sri (late) G.M. Frank Agrawal continued to be the lease holders of aforesaid land. The house in dispute is constructed on the aforesaid land and belongs to lessees. The main bungalow was in occupation of three tenants. About 1/4 premises was in occupation of two tenants, namely, M/s. Jeep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and Mohd. Naseem Khan, the respondent No. 3. There are some out houses also with which this Court is not concerned.;