R.H.ZAIDI,J. - (1.) INSTANT petition arises out of proceedings under Section 16(i)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for short 'the Act' and is directed against the orders passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 dated 29.12.1995 and 30.1.1996 respectively.
(2.) BASIC facts pertinent to the issues in question may be stated as follows :- A portion of the residential building No. 3, Minto Road, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the building in question), which was previously in occupation of Sri Nizam Sherwani, was vacated by him on 11.8.92. Thereafter an application for allotment of the building in question in his favour was filed by the Sri D.P. Singh. On the said application the report of the Rent Control Inspector was sent for and, thereafter, the respondent No. 3 after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules declared the building in question as vacant on 23.11.1981. The petitioner No. 1 objected to the declaration of vacancy, but after reconsidering the matter and after taking all relevant factors into consideration, the respondent No. 3 confirmed the order of vacancy vide order dated 11.2.1989. Challenging the validity of the aforesaid order, petitioner No. 1 filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1931 of 1982 in the High Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 24.5.1982, reported in 1982 ALJ 857(DB). The petitioner No. 1, thereafter, preferred Civil Appeal No. 2243 of 1982 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the same was also dismissed on 26.1.1995. Thus, the order dated 23.11.1981 declaring the building in question as vacant has become final. It is important to note that in the said proceedings no objection whatsoever, was raised by the respondent No. 2, Sri I.F. Agarwal. It may also be noted that the petitioner No. 1 has taken contradictory and conflicting stands with respect of the status of Sri Nizam Sherwani who was the occupant of the building in question. It was firstly stated that he was occupying the building in question in his own right. Thereafter, he was described as a guest and lastly as a care-taker. This Court while dismissing the aforesaid writ petition was pleased to observe :- "It is true that companies keep guest houses but for that purposes there was no material before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner took one plea while in the other contrary to it. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer was not wrong in disbelieving the petitioner and holding that possession of Sri Nizam Sherwani was unauthorised." After the building in question was vacated by Sri Nizam Sherwani, during pendency of the proceedings, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 appear to have been inducted in the same by the petitioner No. 1, as they happened to be its employees.
(3.) AFTER the aforesaid building was declared as vacant, respondent No. 1 Sri V.K. Agarwal filed an application for releasing of the building in question in his favour under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act, claiming himself to be the landlord on the basis of registered agreement of sale dated 21.8.1982 executed by Sri I.F. Agarwal, the owner of the building in dispute.;