- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. These two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment, as jointly agreed upon by the learned Counsel for the parties. The fate of writ petition No. 2403 of 2007 is dependant on the success of the leading writ petition i. e. , writ petition No. 13237 of 2001.
(2.) THE background facts of the case are as follows : Gulab Das, the respondent No. 2 claiming himself owner and landlord on the basis of the sale-deed executed in his favour with respect to the property in question which according to the petitioner was one of the trust properties initiated proceedings for declaration of vacancy and release in respect of the disputed properties being house No. K-46/197, Mohalla Hartirath under Section 16 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 1st of August, 1995. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 24th of February, 1999 declared the vacancy and subsequently it was released by the order dated 15th of May, 1999 in favour of the respondent No. 2, Gulab Das. Gulab Nabi Azad, the alleged unauthorised occupant (hereinafter referred to as tenant) filed a review application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act to recall the order dated 24 of February, 1999 declaring the vacancy. THE said review application was dismissed by the order dated 3rd of January, 2001. Gulab Nabi Azad, respondent No. 6 herein was found as unauthorised occupant, and his eviction from the disputed property was ordered. He challenged the aforestated orders unsuccessfully before this Court in writ petition No. 2152 of 2001. The petitioner filed the aforesaid two petitions claiming that it is a public religious trust which enshrines in house No. K- 46/197, Mohalla Hartirath, police station Kotwali, District Varanasi. One Gaya Prasad son of Mathura Prasad created a trust in respect of the property in question alongwith other properties by executing registered trust deed dated 28th of October, 1949. He had appointed six trustees including one Mukundi Lal. Mukundi Lal who was one of the original trustees managed to get a will deed dated 4th of August, 1950 from the author of the trust and he sold the property by playing fraud on 17-12-1974. Suit No. 111 of 1977 for cancellation of the will deed dated 4th of August, 1950 and sale-deed dated 17-12-1974 is pending before the Civil Court. Shri Raja Singh son of late Badri Prasad through whom the present writ petition has been filed claiming himself as chief trustee claims that he has been subsequently appointed by the remaining trustees. There was proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. in between Raja Singh and Mohd. Kalim and Gulab Nabi Azad, respondent No. 6 in this writ petition. Therefore, the order dated 24-2-1999 declaring vacancy and the release order dated 15-5-1999 releasing the disputed property in favour of respondent No. 2, Gulab Das, be quashed, as the trust is the owner of the disputed property. The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs : (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 24-2-1999, 15-5-1999 and 3-1-2001 (Annexures - 7, 8 & 10 to this writ petition ). (ii) issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and (iii) award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner has sought quashing of the order declaring the vacancy as also the release order releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of Gulab Das, the respondent No. 2 and the order passed on the review application rejecting it filed by the tenant (respondent No. 6 ). In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, Gulab Das, it has been stated that the present writ petition is not maintainable as Shri Raja Singh who claims himself as chief trustee has got no locus standi to file the present petition as he has not been appointed as chief trustee by any authority or Court. In other words, he is a self styled chief trustee and filed the present writ petition with oblique motive to protect the tenant (respondent No. 6) from the release proceedings who has lost up to the High Court in writ petition No. 2152 of 2001.;