B.C. Saksena, J. - (1.) The petitioner No. 1 claims herself to be the sole heir of her father; one Mohd Yusuf who had beep a tenant of the shop in dispute for the past 40 years. Mohd. Yusuf died in May 1990. The shop in dispute belonged to one Chaudharain Hamida Banu who transferred it to Smt. Jahan Ara Sher, wife of Munawar Sher and who in turn transferred the said shop by a registered sale deed dated 24th July 1990 to opposite party No. 2. The petitioner No. 2 is husband of petitioner No. 1 and it is stated that he is assisting in the cloth business of petitioner No. 1. The petitioners further alleged that opposite party No. 2 did not inform them about transfer of the shop in dispute in her favour. However, when rent was tried to be paid to Chaudharain Hamida Banu, she refused to accept the rent. On enquiry,the petitioners came to know about the transfer in favour of opposite party No. 2. The rent was sought to be paid to opp. party No. 2 but he refused whereupon rent, as stated, is being deposited under Section 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 in Misc. Case No. 22 of 1991 in the Court of Munsiff, Barabanki.
(2.) The opposite party No. 2 moved an application under Section 16 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 stating therein that the shop is in occupation of petitioner No. 2 who is not the lawful occupant. No facts about the bona fide need or requirement ere stated to have been indicated in the said application seeking release of the shop in question in favour of opposite party No. 2. The petitioners filed written statement to the said application under Section 16 of the Act and a copy thereof is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The pleadings in the said application or the written statement are not relevant, for' purposes of decision in the writ petition. A report from the Rent Control Inspector was called and submitted The said report is dated 16-12-1991.
(3.) The said application was taken up on 23rd March, 1993. On that date the parties appeared through their counsel and 24th March, 1993 is stated to have been filed as the next date and it was also provided that on that date, the Labour Inspector whose statement was recorded ex parte shall be produced for cross examination. Certified copy of the order sheet dated 23rd March 1993 has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The direction in the order sheet dated 23rd March 1993 given to the effect that on the next date the Labour Inspector will be produced for cross examination, it is stated, was made in view of the fact that when the statement of the Labour Inspector was recorded, no opportunity of cross-examination had been afforded. The petitioners allege that when the case was taken up on 24th March 1993, the Labour Inspector was not produced for cross-examination and the report of the Rent Control Inspector was placed on record. A request was made on behalf of the petitioners that they wish to lead evidence and also cross-examine the Labour Inspector. It was also alleged that time for filing written statement was not given. It is alleged that on 24th March 1993 no order had been passed in their presence and only 27th March, 1993 was fixed for evidence and the same was noted and signed by the counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners' case is that the order dated 24th March 1993 declaring vacancy has been anti dated. Correctness of certain facts in the report of the Labour Inspector has also been disputed.;