D.M.Chandrashekhar, R.M.Sahai, JJ. - (1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of the Prescribed Authority under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Prescribed Authority to pass an order putting the petitioners in possession of a house in Civil Lines, Kanpur (here in after referred to as the suit house).
(2.) MOST of the material facts aire not in dispute. Petitioner-1 is the widow of Lala Jamuna Prasad, and petitioner-2, Govind Prasad, and Shiv Prasad and Anandi Prasad are their sons. Petitioners-3 and 4 are the widow and the daughter respectively of late Lala Devi Prasad. The petitioners and Shri Prasad and Anandi Prasad (here in after referred to as the landlords) were the co-owners of the suit house and they had let it to respondent-2, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) which has been using it as a Guest House for accommodating its officers and guests. The landlords had made an application under Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Old Act) for grant of permission to file a suit for eviction of the tenant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had, by his order dated 20-7-1971, declined to grant such permission and dismissed that application. In revision, the Commissioner held that the need of the landlords was genuine and pressing and outweighed the need of the tenant. By his order dated 5-7-1972, he reversed the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and granted permission to the landlords to file a suit. The tenant's representation to the State Government under Section 7-F of the Old Act against the order of the Commissioner, was dimissed by State Government by its order dated 14-11-1972.
(3.) THEREAFTER the landlords filed on 14-12-1972 an application under Section 21 read with clause (rr) of subsection (2) of Section 43 of the Act before the Prescribed Authority for eviction of the tenant from the suit house. During the pendency of that application the tenant filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 398 of 1973 impugning the orders of the aforesaid Commissioner and the State Government. The tenant has claimed to have purchased l/8th share of! Shiv Prasad and l/8th share of Anandi Prasad in the suit house under two registered sale deeds dated 29-5-1973 and 4-7-1973. In the writ petition it was urged for the tenant that the eviction proceedings under Section 21 of the Act were not maintainable as the tenant had since become a co-owner of the suit house, having purchased one fourth share therein. K. N. Singh, J., while dismissing the writ petition by his order dated 18-10-1973, observed that it was not necessary to express any opinion on the above contention and that it would be open to the tenant to raise that contention before the Prescribed Authority which might consider the same and decide it according to law.;