- (1.) In this writ petition on 21.11.2013, 25.11.2013 and 26.11.2013 following orders were passed on the writ petition and order sheet: "21.11.2013: Put up as fresh on 25.11.2013. Until 25.11.2013 no dispossession shall take place. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the receipts, copies of which have been filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition showing payment of rent to Sri Surendra Nath Srivastava, real brother of respondent No.2, Dr. Mahendra Nath are forged and Sri Surendra Nath Srivastava never issued any receipts. On inquiry from court as to whether he can file affidavit of Surendra Nath Srivastava, learned counsel states that it can very well be done. Accordingly, on 25.11.2013 affidavit of Surendra Nath Srivastava shall be filed along with vakalatnama of some advocate. Learned counsel for petitioner is directed to immediately implead Sri Surendra Nath Srivastava as respondent No.4 in the writ petition. 25.11.2013: Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit. Shri Surendra Nath Srivastava, respondent no. 4 is present in the Court and states that he has never issued any receipt in favour of the petitioner. He further states that the upper portion belongs to him and ground floor belongs to his brother who is opposite party no. 2 Dr. Mahendra Nath. Put up tomorrow i.e. 26.11.2013. Stay order granted earlier shall remain in operation till tomorrow. 26.11.2013: Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Judgment reserved. Put up for delivery of judgment on 02.12.2013. Until 02.12.2013 petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property in dispute."
(2.) Dispute relates to part of House No.136/1984, Khurshed Bagh, Lucknow consisting of three rooms, (or two rooms) verandah, godown etc. According to the opposite party No.2, Dr. Mahendra Nath, the tenant of the accommodation in dispute was Rajesh Kumar Shukla, opposite party No.3 against whom he filed release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No.58 of 2009, Dr. Mahendra Nath Vs. Rajesh Kumar Shukla, which was allowed ex parte by Prescribed Authority/ First Additional J.S.C.C., Court No.18, Lucknow on 20.10.2010. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. According to the release application, accommodation in dispute consisted of two rooms and other amenities, which was let out in 2000 and that on the first floor his brother, opposite party No.4, Satyendra Nath was residing and in mutual partition ground floor had come in his share. It was also stated that accommodation in dispute was given on rent to opposite party No.3 in 2000, however he resided only uptil 2004 and thereafter, he sublet the same to one of his relations, who was residing. It was also stated that for six years no rent had been paid. It was also stated that opposite party in the release application was residing in his own house.
(3.) The opposite party in the release application appeared in the case and filed vakalatnama and an application seeking time for filing written statement. Thereafter, he did not appear in the proceedings and also did not file any evidence. Accordingly, proceedings were directed to proceed ex parte. This is very strange that in the release application it was stated that opposite party, Rajesh Kumar had sublet the portion to one of his relations, however the name of the relation was not mentioned. During arguments learned counsel for opposite party No.2 stated that the present petitioner was that relation of Rajesh Kumar, opposite party in the release application.;