- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21-1-1994, passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the objection of the petitioner against an application for delivery of possession filed by the landlord- respondent No. 2 under Section 23 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been rejected.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 is landlord of building bearing Municipal No. 989, Muthigani, Allahabad. RESPONDENT No. 3 was admittedly a tenant of the said premises. RESPONDENT No. 2 filed an application for release of the building in question under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on 4-8-1989, on the allegation that the premises in question was let out to respondent No. 3 in the year 1970 for his transport business which was being run in the name and style of M/s. Shiva Ji Transport Company. He used to book goods as well as ply his trucks. At the time of letting out the premises in question respondent No. 2 was in the employment with M/s. Hanuman Prasad and Brothers which used to deal with the business of sale of Indian-made foreign liquors. The firm closed its business on account of heavy losses. The service of the employees including that of landlord-respondent No. 2 were retrenched. He became jobless and now wants to establish himself in business. It was further averred that the tenant-respondent No. 3 illegally accom modated Sri Lalta Prasad (petitioner) who was participating in his trade. The petitioner filed suit No. 571 of 1989-Lalta Prasad Jaiswal v. Jagannath Sahai Verma and others in the Court of Munsif West, Allahabad for permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from evicting him from the disputed premises on the allegation that respondent No. 3 had vacated the accommodation which was under his tenancy. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 let out front portion of the building in question to the petitioner and the back portion of it was retained by respondent No. 2. He cannot be evicted illegally and forcibly. The trial court is alleged to have passed an order restraining the defendants from evicting the petitioner except in accordance with law. The petitioner also filed an application for his impleadment as a party in RA. Case No. 105 of 1989, filed by respondent No. 2, under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act against respondent No. 3 on the allegation that he was a tenant of the premises in question. The Prescribed Authority rejected his application by its order dated 27-6-1991. After rejection of the application, the tenant- respondent No. 3 entered into a compromise with landlord- respondent No. 2. The Prescribed Authority on 2nd July, 1991 allowed the application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 21 of the Act and released the disputed premises in his favour by its order dated 2nd July, 1991. The petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 102 of 1991 before the District Judge, against the order dated 27-6-1991 rejecting his application for impleadment as a party in the case and also against the order dated 2nd July, 1991, whereby the Prescribed Authority had allowed the release application of respondent No. 2. The appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 21-5-1992. The petitioner challenged these orders in writ petition No. 20923 of 1992. This writ petition was dismissed by this court on 28-9-1992 with the observation that the order of release passed in the case against respondent No. 2 shall not be binding upon the petitioner.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed an application for delivery of possession under Section 23 of the Act in pursuance of the release order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 2nd July, 1991. The petitioner filed objection and it was stated by him that he was a tenant of the premises in question and the order which has been passed against respondent No. 3 is not binding upon him and he cannot be evicted in pursuance of that order. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that the petitioner is not a tenant of the premises in question and rejected the objection of the petitioner by its order dated 21-9-1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly urged that the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that the petitioner is not a tenant of the premises in question in erroneous in law. Secondly, the petitioner has filed Suit No. 571 of 1989 in the Civil Court and the question involved in whether the petitioner is a tenant and till the matter is decided finally in the suit, he is not liable to be evicted and lastly, it is urged that the petitioner was not party in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act which was initiated against respondent No. 3 alone. He cannot be evicted on the basis of the order passed in that proceeding.;