S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) First writ petition has been filed by landlord Ravindra Kumar Batra and arises out of suit for eviction filed by him against tenants Smt. Chunia and others. The second writ petition has been filed by tenants Smt. Chunia and others and arises out of release proceedings under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 initiated against them by landlord R.K. Batra. In the suit giving rise to the first writ petition as well as in the revision filed against the judgment of the suit it was held that R.K. Batra was not the landlord. However in the release application giving rise to the second writ petition as well as in the appeal filed against the judgment passed in the release application it was held that R.K. Batra was the landlord. In the release application the points of bonafide need and comparative hardship were decided in favour of landlord R.K. Batra.
(2.) The main point required to be decided in these two writ petitions is as to whether R.K. Batra is landlord of the accommodation in dispute or not. A house was purchased by Smt. Savitri Devi Batra, mother of R.K. Batra on 15.11.1977 for Rs. 41,000/-. The first floor of the said house which is in dispute in these writ petitions was already in possession of Panna Lal, the tenant since before the purchase of the house of Smt. Savitri Devi Batra. The tenants in these two writ petitions i.e. Smt. Chunia and Ors. are heirs of Panna Lal who became tenant after the death of Panna Lal. Initially Smt. Savitri Devi Batra filed a release application under Section 21 of the Act against Panna Lal in the year 1981 being P.A. Case No. 56 of 1981. However, during the pendency of release application Panna Lal died and substitution application was filed beyond 30 days which was rejected by Prescribed Authority on the ground of delay. The said order was challenged in appeal (Rent Appeal No. 430 of 1983). Thereafter on 20.3.1984 R.K. Batra filed a suit against his mother Smt. Savitri Devi Batra being O.S. No. 221 of 1984. In the said suit it was pleaded that R.K. Batra had contributed Rs. 16,000/- towards sale consideration of the house, hence transaction was benami and in fact R.K. Batra was owner of the first floor the house purchased by Smt. Savitri Devi Batra. The said suit was decreed through compromise on 22.5.1984 and R.K. Batra was declared to be owner of the first floor. Thereafter R.K. Batra and his mother Smt. Savitri Devi Batra gave notice to the tenants on 18.6.1984 intimating them that R.K. Batra had become owner landlord of the first floor accommodation which was in their tenancy occupation. Thereafter R.K. Batra filed P.A. Case No. 92 of 1984 or 2.7.1984 for release under Section 21 of U.P. Act. Thereafter on 20.7.1984 Smt. Savitri Devi Batra got her appeal No. 432 of 1983 (arising out of her release application filed in the year 1981) dismissed as withdrawn. R.K. Batra also filed suit for eviction against the tenants on 25.3.1985 being S.C.C. Suit No. 105 of 1985 on the file of J.S.C.C. Meerut on the ground of default and denial of title. Release application was allowed on 2.4.1986. Said order was challenged by the tenants through Misc. Appeal No. 93 of 1986 which was dismissed by XI A.D.J., Meerut on 25.2.1989 hence second writ petition by the tenants. S.C.C. Suit No. 105 of 1985 was dismissed by J.S.C.C. Meerut on 9.12.1986 against which landlord R.K. Batra filed revision No. 13 of 1987 which was dis-missed in limine by the District Judge, Meerut on 13.1.1997 hence the first writ petition by the landlord R.K. Batra.
(3.) The main argument of learned Counsel for the tenant is that the suit in R.K. Batra and his mother was got decreed through compromise collusively in order to evict the tenant. I do not agree with this contention. Even Smt. Savitri Devi Batra could file release application for the need of her son. She could also file suit for eviction and arrears of rent.;