- (1.) A. N. Varma, J. The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings in itiated under Section 16 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by opposite party No. 2 allowing the application for release, has been dismissed.
(2.) THE dispute in the petition per tains to a Motor Garage, measuring about 12 ft. x 18 ft. situate in Jagat Cinema Building, Aminabad, Lucknow. According to the petitioners, by virtue of registered lease deed dated 5-7-1975, they took on lease the building in ques tion for running Cinema. According to them, it was found that there was shortage of space for opening a book ing office, therefore, they are said to have approached the owners of the building for getting on rent a Motor Garage in the building in question which at the relevant time was locked. According to the petitioners, the said Garage was in exclusive posses sion of Shri Parkash Sunder Bhargava and, therefore, with the consent of all the co-owners the petitioners are said to have got the said Motor Garage on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- with effect from 1-10-1975. The tenancy of the petitioners was alleged to have been regularized under Section 14 of the Act. The said Motor Garage was being used as a booking office. As per the petitioners' case, Shri Kailash Chandra Bhargava was on inimical terms not only against his brothers but also against the petitioners. They had lodged a report of theft against him for theft of certain girders. As a counter blast, late Shri Kailash Chandra Bhar gava applied for release of the said Motor Garage in 1976 and also got an application for allotment through one Matin Ahmad. Both the applications i. e. , application for allotment as well as ap plication for release were rejected. Subsequently, in November 1978, Late Kailash Chandra Bhargava again applied for release. Along with him one Naresh Kumar Rawat and Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta applied for allot ment. On report submitted by the In spector, vacancy in respect of the build ing was declared and the same was released in favour of Kailash Chandra Bhargava.
(3.) THE case of the petitioners was refuted by the opposite parties. Accord ing to the opposite parties the garage in question was never let out to the petitioners nor did it form part of the lease dated 5-7-1975. THE petitioners were unauthorized occupants of the building in question and the benefit of Section 14 of the Act was not available to them. According to the opposite parties, one Matin Ahmad applied for allot ment in respect of the building in ques tion and the opposite parties applied for release of the same. Both the applica tions i. e. one for allotment and the other for release were rejected by the A. D. M. Civil Supplies vide its order dated 16-12-1976. Being aggrieved against the same the revision was filed which was dismissed by the learned District Judge vide order dated 18-1-1977, on the ground that the garage in question was found in possession of the owners and, thus, was not vacant and the dispute about the possession appeared to be inter se between four land-lords/owners. THEreafter, on 14-9- 1977, one Naresh Kumar Rawat applied for allot ment of the said garage. Another ap plication for allotment was preferred by one Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta on 27-1-1978. On the application preferred by Rawat, the Rent Control Inspector sub mitted its report on 27-12-1977 while on the application by Dinesh Kumar Gupta, report was submitted on 17-2-1978 and upon an application by Shri Kailash Chandra Bhargava for release, the report was submitted by the Inspector on 30-11-1978. All the three reports submitted by the Rent Control Inspector indicated that the garage in question was in unauthorized occupation of the petitioners i. e. there was no valid allot ment order in their favour. On the basis of the said reports, vacancy in respect of the premises in question was notified on 17-12- 1981 and objections were invited. After the disposal of the objections the A. D. M. Civil Supply, vide order dated 2-2-1982, declared the vacancy in respect of the premises in question. Being aggrieved against the same, the petitioners filed a revision before the District Judge (Revision No. 22 of 1982 ). The said revision was, however, dismissed.;