- (1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India, the petitioners pray for a writ of certiorari to quash an order of dispossession in Form 'd' under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and also a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from taking any steps to dispossess the petitioners from the accommodation in dispute, i. e. building No. 24/34 Mahatama Gandhi Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad.
(2.) THE petitioners are the tenant occupants of the said building and respondent No. 4 is the owner landlord. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the public functionaries, i e. , State Government officers acting under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as 'the Act' ). Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the petitioners and respondent No. 4. The learned Standing Counsel Sri R. D. Gupta stated that the State authorities do not have any interest in this litigation between the tenant and the landlord and, therefore, they would not contest the writ petition. The matter has been argued at length between the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 and, therefore, I propose to dispose of this writ petition finally at the stage of admission itself. The petitioners are in actual physical possession of the aforesaid property which is being used for commercial purposes. It was initially taken or rent by Sheo Bux Roy, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, some where in the year 1937 and, at present, they are in occupation thereof and business under the name and style of M/s. B. N. Rama and Company is being carried on in the said premises. Somewhere in the year 1976, Ganpat Roy, the father of the petitioner No. 2, Ramesh Roy, had taken his son-in-law Swarup Kailash as a partner and started carrying on the business in a portion of the said business premises in the name and style of M/s. B. N. Rama and Company (Textitles ).
(3.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer by an order dated 18th November, 1981, declared the said premises to have fallen vacant within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act, as the said Ganpat Roy (sic) allowed the building to be occupied by the said Swarup Kailash, who was not a member of his family. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing a writ petition in this Court. The writ petition was dismissed on the view that it was not maintainable. The petitioners then filed a Special Leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by order dated 29th March, 1985, the Hon'bie Supreme Court directed this Court to re-hear the writ petition filed by the petitioners on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further said that pending disposal of the writ petition before the High Court, there shall be a stay of further proceedings in respect of allotment of the premises in question and the petitioners shall not be dispossessed therefrom. The writ petition was, ulti mately, allowed by this Court vide order dated 21st September, 1992, and the order declaring the premises to have fallen vacant was quashed. The landlord respondent No. 4 then approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 574 of 1993 and by judgment dated 5th January, 1995, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the landlord's appeal and setting aside this Court's order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court restored the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the last ordered as follows in para 29 of its order : - "29. However, respondents shall not be evicted from the premises in question upto 30th June, 1995 if they file usual undertaking before this Court within four weeks from today. " In pursuance of the judgment dated 5th January, 1995, a decree was prepared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which stated as under : "the Appeal above mentioned being called on for hearing before this Court on the 30th day November, 1994. Upon perusing the record and hearing counsel for the appearing parties above mentioned, the Court took time to consider its judgment and the appeal being called on for judgment on the 5th day of January, 1995, this Court doth in allowing the appeal order: (1) That the Judgment and order dated 21st September, 1992 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14310 of 1981 be and is hereby set aside and instead the Orders dated 13th August, 1981 and 18th November, 1981 of Court of A. D. M. (Civil Defence) Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad in Case No. 194/81 be and are hereby restored ; (2) That the Respondent Nos. 5 to 19 herein shall not be evicted from the premises in question upto 30th June, 1995 subject to their filing in this Court an undertaking within four weeks from this the 5th day of January, 1995 to the following effect; (i) That the Tenants/respondent Nos. 5 to 19 herein shall not induct any other person in the suit premises and shall handover vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to the Landlord/appellant/herein on or before the 30th June, 1995. (ii) That the Tenants/respondent Nos. 5 to 19 herein shall pay to the Landlord Respondent herein arrears of rent, if any, within one month from this the 5th day of January, 1995 and shall pay to the Landlord/appellant herein future compensation for the use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before the 10th of every month. (3) That in the event of the Respondents Nos. 5 to 19 herein failing to comply with any one or more of the conditions stated above or if the undertaking is not filed as required within the stipulated time the decree for eviction shall become executable forthwith: (4) That there shall be no order as to costs of this appeal in this Court; And this court doth further order that this order be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. ";