Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Property in dispute is comprised in house No. 105/722 Anandbagh Kanpur Nagar, containing three rooms, courtyard, latrine and bathroom etc. It is admitted to the parties that in the accommodation in dispute a printing press is being run. At this juncture, it may also be mentioned that the princely rent, which the tenant is required to pay, is Rs. 20/ - per month. Probably for the years even this rent has not been paid. However, Court is not recording any finding regarding non -payment of existing rent. According to learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2/new landlord, no rent has been paid. Respondent No. 2 Uma Kant Tripathi purchased the property in dispute through registered sale deed from the previous landlords on 17/21 February 2004. Previous landlords were making efforts since 1972 to evict the tenant but of no avail. First of all previous landlords in the year 1972 filed suit for eviction against Brij Mohan father of the petitioner (SCC Suit No. 2071 of 1972). The allegation was that accommodation in dispute had been sublet by him to his sister -in -law i.e. wife of Brij Kishore real brother of Brij Mohan. (There is another brother of Brij Mohan whose name is Brij Bhushan). Suit was decreed on 14.11.1975. Revision was dismissed and writ petition filed in this Court was also dismissed on 3.9.1976. Thereafter, Brij Bhushan one of the real brothers of Brij Mohan came forward and asserted that he was the real tenant. His claim was rejected by all the Courts including this Court, which dismissed his Writ Petition No. 4843 of 1981 on 18.5.1981. Thereafter previous landlords filed application for execution of decree obtained by them in SCC Suit No. 2071 of 1972. Execution application was registered as Execution Case No. 70 of 1981. Unfortunately the said execution application is still pending. Thereafter one Vinod Kumar Goyal filed application for allotment. The case of previous landlords as well as the present landlord is that Vinod Kumar Goyal was put forward by petitioner Pradeep Kumar. On the application of Sri Goyal, vacancy was declared on the ground that there was eviction decree against the tenant. Thereafter previous landlords filed release application under section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which was allowed. Revision filed against the same was dismissed. Thereafter writ petition was filed by V.K. Goyal in this Court, which was also dismissed by me on 1.10.2003 (W.P. No 2958 of 1990). While dismissing the writ petition, I also imposed the cost of Rs. 15000/ - upon the petitioner V.K. Goyal which according to learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 was never paid. I directed that R.C. and E.O. shall put the landlords respondent No. 1 to 5 of the said writ petition in possession within one month positively from the date of production of certified copy of the said order. It may be mentioned that release order was never challenged by Brij Mohan, the tenant or after his death by his son the petitioner who succeeded to the tenancy. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he was not aware of the release order however I am not expressing any opinion about this aspect of the matter, as it is not relevant for decision of this writ petition.
(2.) IN pursuance of my order dated 1.10.2003, application for possession under section 16(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by previous landlords before R.C. and E.O./A.D.M. (City) Kanpur Nagar in the form of Case No. 4 of 2004. Unfortunately before previous landlords could obtain possession, they sold the property in dispute to respondent No. 2. According to learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 patience of the previous landlords exhausted and they realized that they would never be able to obtain possession hence they sold the property in dispute. If such a doubt was entertained by the previous landlords then it was unfounded. My order dated 1.10.2003 was so paramount that there was no escape to the R.C. and E.O. from delivering possession to the previous landlord. After selling the property in dispute previous landlords got their application for possession (which was registered as Case No. 4 of 2004), dismissed as not pressed by R.C. and E.O. on 5.4.2004. Thereafter vendee/new landlord/respondent No. 2 filed similar application for possession under section 16(4) of the Act before R.C. and E.O. which was registered as Case No. 32 of 2004. Application was filed on 19.7.2004. In the said application on 26.8.2004, order of eviction of unauthorized occupant Vinod Goyal was passed by issuing Form -D (Sri Goyal was only applicant for allotment and he was never in possession). In the said case, i.e., Case No. 32 of 2004, Brij Kishore the third brother of Brij Mohan the original tenant (father of the petitioner) filed objections on 7.10.2004 stating therein that he was the tenant. The said objections were rejected by R.C. and E.O./A.D.M. (City) Kanpur Nagar on 6.1.2005. Revision filed against the said order was also dismissed. Thereafter Brij Kishore filed writ petition being Writ Petition No. 18506 of 2006. Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J. dismissed the writ petition on 4.4.2006. In the said judgment it was mentioned, "both the authorities below have found that he has failed to produce any evidence to establish the fact that he was the tenant."
(3.) IN my opinion the dismissal of the said writ petition cannot jeopardize the case of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 states that in the revision which had been filed by the Brij Kishore against order dated 6.1.2005, the present petitioner was pairokar. In my opinion this fact will also not make much difference.;