SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J. - (1.) ORDER dated 04.12.2013 passed on the order of the first writ petition is quoted below: "Heard Shri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mayankar Singh, learned counsel for landlord respondent in all the three writ petitions. Within a week written arguments may be filed. Shri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner shall also mention in the written arguments the latest position of payment of rent which is Rs.30/ - per month. If the rent is being deposited then the photocopies of tender receipts should be filed. Judgment reserved. " Pursuant to the above order written arguments were filed by Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for tenant petitioner on 10.12.2013, however it was not stated anywhere in the said written arguments that any rent had been paid. Petitioner Vijay Kumar is tenant and Vincent Jyoti Primari School, opposite party No.1 in the second and third writ petition and opposite party No.3 in the first writ petition is the landlord (hereinafter referred to as the school). A big property containing eight kotharis and other constructions was purchased by the landlord school. The dispute in these writ petitions relates to two or three kotharis. According to the landlord, the petitioner was tenant of two kotharis at the rate of Rs.30/ - per month per kothari. However, according to the tenant he was tenant of one more kothari and rate of rent of all the three khotaris was Rs.15/ - per month per khotari total Rs.45/ - per month.
(2.) AS far as the third khotari is concerned according to landlord school it was in tenancy occupation of Smt. Samsa Devi. Against Smt. Samsa Devi, school filed release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No.7 of 1991. The said case was allowed on the basis of compromise by Prescribed Authority, Munsif Sadar, Faizabad on 26.02.1992. Thereafter, Smt. Samsa Devi was evicted through process of court. She did not file any appeal etc. Petitioner asserting that actually he was the tenant of the third kothari and not Smt. Samsa Devi, filed belated appeal against judgment of the Prescribed Authority. The appeal was belated by 280 days and accompanied by delay condonation application. The matter was registered as Misc. Case No.7 of 1993. Vijay Kumar Vs. Vicent Jyoti Primary School. District Judge, Faizabad dismissed the case on 25.11.1995. First writ petition is directed against order dated 25.11.1995. The main ground taken by the petitioner was that he had filed a civil suit seeking to restrain the landlord school from evicting him from the three kotharis of which he was tenant and a temporary injunction had been granted to him in the civil suit (Regular Suit No.485 of 1991). Petitioner also filed application for taking back the possession of third kothari before the Prescribed Authority, which had decided the case under Section 21 of the Act filed by the landlord school against Smt. Smita Devi. The application for restitution of possession was rejected on 20.07.1999 by Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sadar Faizabad. (The application had been registered as Case No.84 of 1992.) The said order has been challenged through the second writ petition.
(3.) AS far as third writ petition is concerned, it arises out of S.C.C. Suit No.4 of 1992 instituted by the landlord school against tenant petitioner for his eviction from two khotaries on the ground of default after serving a notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent. The said suit was decreed on 15.09.2000 by J.S.C.C. Faizabad. Against the said decree tenant petitioner filed Revision No.219 of 2000, which was dismissed by A.D.J. Faizabad on 11.05.2001. The said judgments, decree and order have been challenged through the third writ petition. Third Writ Petition: -;