ADITYA NATH MITTAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Sudeep Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Siddharth Dhaon, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2013, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Hardoi in Rent Appeal No.1 of 2004 as well as the judgment and order dated 07.04.2004, passed in P.A. Case No.02 of 1985.
(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that Smt. Ganga Devi along with her sons filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for release of the shop in question. It was alleged that the applicants have purchased the house from Hemraj Shivni vide sale deed dated 09.12.1977 in which the shop is also situated and Hemraj Shivni had purchased the plot of the land from Sri Syed Ejaz Rasool vide sale deed dated 03.05.1954. Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi was the tenant of Hemraj Shivni at the rate of Rs.80/ - per month, in which the shop in the name and style of Prakash Gun House was carried out. After the death of Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi, his legal heirs became the tenant. The shop in question is in dilapidated condition, which requires reconstruction. It was further alleged that the shop in question was required for Triloki Nath and Ashok Kumar as well as the applicant nos. 3 and 4 who wanted to do their business. It was also alleged that the opposite party no.2 was an employee in the Railway and opposite party no.4 was carrying on the business in the name of Prakash Gun House. The opposite party no.3 had taken another shop on rent, in which he was doing business of Jawahar Machinery Store. The opposite parties had sought permission from the District Magistrate to carry on the business in the shop of Chaudhary Sarafat Ullah Kirmani and permission was granted to him. The notice was issued to the opposite parties to vacate the shop but they have not vacated the shop. It was also alleged in the replication that Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi had instituted a Misc. Case No.24 of 1978 for depositing the rent, in which he had admitted the ownership of the applicants. Another P.A.Suit No.07 of 1978 was instituted against Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi in which Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi and his successors had admitted the applicants as owner and landlord. The opposite parties had filed their written statement in which it was alleged that regarding the same subject matter another suit was filed, which was withdrawn. It was denied that the shop is in dilapidated condition. The opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 had also stated that the opposite party nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have no concern with the shop in which the business in the name and style of Prakash Gun House is being carried out. It was also alleged that the applicants no.1 has other shop and there was no bonafide need. The application was contested mainly by the opposite party no.4, Bhanu Prakash Chaturvedi, who is the petitioner in this case, who has alleged that Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi had purchased the plot of land for a consideration of Rs.50/ - from the fruit seller Pohap and Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi had constructed the shop in the year 1966, in which the business in the name and style of Prakash Gun House is being carried out. Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi had executed a Will in favour of Bhanu Prakash Chaturvedi, therefore, Bhanu Prakash Chaturvedi is the owner of the shop in dispute. The sale deed in favour of Ganga Devi is forged. The petitioner, who was opposite party no.4, had filed an amendment on 16.01.2004, in which it was admitted that the shop in dispute belonged to Syed Ejaz Rasool, who had executed a lease -deed on 19.05.1931 in favour of Sultan Ahmad Bilgrami. Therefore, Syed Ejaz Rasool had no right to execute the sale -deed because the lease deed was never cancelled, therefore, the sale -deed executed in favour of Hemraj Shivni was not effective.;