R. H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 5.11.1993, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for dismissing the release application on the ground that before filing the said application six months' notice was not given, has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority.
(2.) IT appears that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, for short 'the Act', pleading that they were the landlords of the building in question. Respondent No. 2 claims his right on the basis of a document dated 28.8.86, which was alleged to be a will executed by Smt. Somwati Devi in his favour. Petitioner filed an application 29/C asserting that the document dated 28.8.86 was nothing, but is a sale deed executed by Smt. Somwati Devi in favour of respondent No. 2. Therefore, after execution of the said sale-deed, it was obligatory upon the respondent No. 2 to give six months' notice, which was not given before filing the release application. The release application was, therefore, not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, respondent No. 2 objected to the said application and asserted that the document dated 28.8.1986 was nothing, but a will/deed or at the best a gift deed and that it was, therefore, not necessary to give six months' notice before filing release application.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority after taking the view that the document in question could not be said to be a sale-deed inasmuch as there was nothing on record to show that monetary consideration was paid for the property in dispute, which was necessary for execution of a sale-deed, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 5.11.1993. Petitioners, thereafter filed the present petition challenging the said order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document in question dated 28.8.86 was a sale-deed and not a gift deed and that the view taken to the contrary by the Prescribed Authority was apparently erroneous and illegal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has supported the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.;