D.N. Johan, J. - (1.) THIS petition although was reported to be cognizable by a Single Judge, was presented before the Division Bench and on 18.12.1985 the Division Bench was pleased to order that notices be issued to opposite party No. 1 to show cause why the writ petition may not be admitted. It is indicated that notices were to be issued directing that the petition would come up for orders on 20th January, 1986. Till that date, the operation of the order contained in Annexure -4 dated 15.11.1985 was stayed.
(2.) THIS matter was listed today in lunch hours but when I learnt that a Division Bench had taken cognizance in the matter, it was ordered by me to be placed before a Division Bench today. It is in these circumstances that the case is before this Court. The landlords have filed this petition against the tenant who is resident of house No. 55 Mohalla Sheikhayya Purwa, Police Station Kowari, District Bacharach, in which the landlords are also residing. The tenant Manhgi Lai moved an application Under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for issue of direction to the landlord to discharge his obligation regarding the amenities which were formerly being enjoyed by him and were being reduced. The application was resisted by the landlord who is the Petitioner in this writ petition alleging that Manhgi Lai was not his tenant. He was only a licensee and the court had no jurisdiction to try . Under Section 27 of the Act. Other pleas as alleged were also denied. The learned prescribed authority after considering the objections and cross -objections, by its Order dated 15.11.1985 allowed the tenants application directing the landlord to restore the possession of the bath -room within two weeks by opening its door and to restore electric connection. In the event of failure on the part of the landlord, the court would get it executed at the expense of the Petitioner. The landlord Petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the said order, approached this Court by means of this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE petition has been resisted on behalf of opposite party No. 1 who happens to be the tenant and a counter affidavit has also been filed with a prayer for vacation of to stay order. Instead of passing an order of admission, since affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, we heard the learned Counsel for the parties on merits and propose to dispose of the petition itself as it lies in a very narrow ambit.;