RAJESH Tandon, J. - (1.) Heard Sri M. K. Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner, Standing counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the respondent no. 2.
(2.) BY the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as appellate Authority evicting the petitioner in pro ceedings under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthor ized Occupant) Act. Briefly stated, the respondent no. 2 filed a case No. 142 of 2002, in Court of Prescribed Authority/s. D. M. Haridwar on 29 -09 -2001 for the eviction of the petitioner and respondent no. 3 from the shop in question and for the arrears of rent. Prescribed Authority/s. D. M. Haridwar issued notices U/s 4 Sub -sec tion (1) and under Section 7 Sub sec tion (2) of U. P. Public Premises (Evic tion of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 to the petitioner on 29 -09 -2001. In the plaint, it was alleged by the Nagar Palika Parishad that a sum of Rs, 3,400/ - is due against Sri Shiv Ohm Gupta, who was a tenant of Rs. 300/ -per month, but has failed to pay the rent and a sum of Rs. 3400/ - accrued against him.
(3.) FURTHER, it has been stated in the application under Section 4 of the Pub lic Premises Act that Sri Shiv Ohm Gupta defendant no. 1 has sub -let the premises to the defendant no. 2 Radhey Krishna and hence the defendant no. 1 is entitled for the eviction. The applica tion was allowed on 16th April, 2003. Both the defendants have preferred an appeal. The appellate Court has also confirmed the findings. Both the courts below have recorded a finding that the premises was let out to Sri Shiv Ohm Gupta defendant no. 1, whereas the same has been sub -let to Radhey Krishna defendant no. 2 and as such the defend ants, are liable to be evicted. Notice under Section 7 was also sent for the recovery of the amount against Sri Shiv Ohm Gupta, but the same has not been paid. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was an agreement between Shiv Ohm Gupta and Radhey Krishna that the petitioner alone shall run the business. The said agreement is dated 27th January, 2001. It is unregis tered agreement and no consent has been obtained from the Nagar Palika for subletting the premises to the petitioner. Further more the document further es tablishes the subletting on the part of the tenant in favour of the petitioner and there is no doubt that the tenant has surrendered the possession in favour of the petitioner.;