Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) LIST revised. No one appears for the respondents. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against original tenant respondent No. 2 Ajai Pal (since deceased and survived by legal representatives), under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 alleging therein that building in dispute was in dilapidated condition and required demolition and new construction. The release application was registered as R.C. Case No. 28 of 1987 on the file of Prescribed Authority/First Additional Civil Judge, Bulandsahar. In the release application it was stated that petitioner was the landlord, as he had purchased the property in dispute from Omwati through registered sale deed dated 7.11.1985 for Rs. 58,000/ -. Initially, Shrimati Siddhwati was owner landlord of the house in dispute. She executed power of attorney in favour of her son Ambrish Kumar. Ambrish Kumar on the basis of said power of attorney sold the property in dispute to his wife Omwati. Thereafter, Omwati sold the property in dispute to the petitioner.
(2.) SHRIMATI Siddhwati filed impleadment application before Prescribed Authority, which was rejected. It appears that thereafter she did not take any steps either for cancellation of the sale deed executed by Ambrish Kumar in favour of his wife nor sale deed executed by Omwati wife of Ambrish Kumar in favour of the petitioner. Prescribed Authority/First Additional Civil Judge, Bulandsahar found that petitioner was the landlord for the purposes of the case before him and that the building was in dilapidated condition. Other requirements of Rule 17 were also found to be proved. Accordingly, release application was allowed for demolition and new construction through judgment and order dated 15.3.1990. Against the said judgment and order original tenant respondent No. 2 filed R.C. Appeal No. 18 of 1990. IV A.D.J. Bulandsahar through judgment and order dated 16.2.1991 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the release application, hence this writ petition by the landlord.
(3.) APPELLATE Court held that petitioner was not the disputed landlord. In this regard the finding of the Appellate Court is clearly erroneous. Question of title in release proceedings under section 21 of the Act is not to be examined thoroughly and finally. Final decision on the question of title may be left upon the regular Civil Court, as held by the Supreme Court in Shamim Akhtar v. Iqbal Ahmad : 2001 (42) ALR 131. Apart from filing impleadment application Shrimati Siddhwati did not take any steps for cancellation of the sale deed. The sale deed in favour of the petitioner was prima facie evidence of his ownership/landlordship. A tenant has got no concern with the dispute amongst landlords. Tenant nowhere asserted that he was continuing to pay rent to Shrimati Siddhwati.;