SAGHIR AHMAD,J. - (1.) THIS is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was filed on August 6, 1984 and notices were directed to be issued to opposite-party Nos. 2 and 3 to show cause why the petition be not admitted. The parties have put in appearance and have exchanged the affidavits.
(2.) THE opposite-party No. 2 is the owner-landlord of House No. 136/96/13 Durvijaiganj, Ward Bashiratganj, Lucknow. Opposite Party No. 3 Chhotu Ram,, who is the father of the present petitioners was said to be the tenant of the said house and against him Regular Suit No. 960 of 1974 for recovery of arrears of rent and for his ejectment was filed in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Lucknow. There were two principal controversies raised in that suit. One related to the rate of rent with which we are not concerned in this petition and the other related to the status of Chhotu Ram who had claimed that his father, Ganpat Ram and not he was the tenant. The trial Court recorded a finding that Ganpat Ram was the tenant and consequently dismissed the suit on September 8, 1978. It may be stated that Ganpat Ram had died on August 13, 1977, i.e. during the pendency of the suit. The order of trial Court was challenged by opposite-party No. 2 in Civil Revision No. 195 of 1978 filed in the Court of the District Judge, Lucknow under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The parties entered into a compromise in the revisional Court and consequently the suit was disposed of on April 24, 1983 in terms of the compromise (Annexure-1) in which it was, inter alia, stated that the relief of ejectment was given up and that Chhotu Ram (opposite-party No. 3) on admitting himself to be the tenant of opposite-party No. 2 had agreed to pay the arrears of rent.
(3.) IT may be stated that Sukh Deo Prasad (opposite-party No. 2) had, in the meantime, also filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for eviction of Chhotu Ram from the premises in question and for its release in his favour. The application was allowed on May 13, 1982. This order was challenged in an appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge, Luckhnow by his judgment and order dated October 16, 1982 on the ground that it was barred by time and that there was no occasion to condone the delay in the filing of the appeal. Chhotu Ram thereafter filed writ petition No. 5153 of 1982 in this Court which was dismissed on May 10, 1983 but on his giving an undertaking that he would vacate the premises on the expiry of four months, it was provided that the order of eviction would not be executed for four months. Chhotu Ram did not honour the undertaking given to this Court and consequently an application under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act was filed against him which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 3289 of 1983. Chhotu Ram was found guilty and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months vide judgment dated March 8, 1984 passed by brother S.C. Mathur, J. It is stated that an appeal against the order of eviction is pending in the Court. In the meantime opposite-party No. 2 Sukhdeo Prasad approached the Prescribed Authority for executing the order of eviction passed against Chhotu Ram. It was at this stage that the petitioners intervened in the proceedings by filing an application (Annexure 3) on September 17, 1983 in which it was set out by them that their grand-father Ganpat Ram was the tenant and on his death they had also become tenants in-common of the premises in question along with Chhotu Ram, their father. It was also stated in this application that Chhotu Ram had colluded with the landlord and consequently the order of eviction was passed in proceedings in which the petitioner were not impleaded as parties although they being tenant in-common with Chhotu Ram ought to have been impleaded as such. It was claimed by them that the order of eviction could not be executed against them. They consequently prayed that the order dated May 13, 1982 by which Sukhedo Prasad's application under Section 21 of the Act was allowed may be recalled and that they may be impleaded as parties in the proceedings and the matter may thereafter be decided on merits. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by his judgment and order dated July 28, 1984. (Annexure-6) and subsequently the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.;