Sunita Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The release application under Section 21(1)(a) has been filed by the heirs of one Sharafat Hussain on the plea that the disputed shop was given on rent for a period of 11 months on 5.12.1973. A rent deed dated 5.12.1973 is said to have been executed by Sharafat Hussain in the name of Umrao Singh father of the respondents.
(3.) It is stated that even after expiry of the period of tenancy indicated in the rent deed dated 5.12.1973, the tenancy had continued from month to month. A dispute of ownership/title was raised by the respondents denying the execution of the rent deed. Rather the respondents have claimed ownership of the disputed shop being their ancestral property. The Prescribed Authority has rejected the release application after appreciation of the evidence on record on the ground that a serious dispute of ownership lies between the parties, the Rent Controller Authority in the summary proceeding cannot decide the said dispute. The matter went up in appeal. The appellate court has allowed the release application with the finding that the applicant has established his ownership over the disputed shop by documentary evidences and the respondent has not been able to establish that they are owner through their predecessor. On the bona fide need and comparative hardship, a finding has been recorded in favour of the applicants for allowing the release. Hence this writ petition.;