Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 18.11.2006, passed by the Judge Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Banda, in S.C.C. Case No. 6/2000, Hemant Kumar Nigam v. Ram Bhajan Nigam, and the judgment and order dated 23.4.2007, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Banda in Civil Appeal No. 3/2006, Ram Bhajan Nigam v. Hemant Kumar Nigam. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid two orders dated 18.11.2006 and 23.4.2007 and further for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the house in dispute situated over Plot No. 4813 at Banda in his possession. Respondent Hemant Kumar Nigam son of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Nigam filed an application under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioner for release of the accommodation in dispute as it was required by the landlord for his personal need.
(3.) THE petitioner contested the release application on the ground that the respondent was not owner and landlord of the accommodation in dispute and in fact the petitioner himself was the owner. THE case set up by the petitioner before the trial court in his written statement is that the Zamindari has not been abolished in District Banda and that he had constructed the house with the permission of the Zamindar and is in occupation of the house since 1938. He further claims that Smt. Narayani Devi and Smt. Jai Devi had no right or authority to sell the aforesaid house to the petitioner and the application has been moved with oblique motive to harass and evict the petitioner who had never been his tenant. The case of the respondent was that he had purchased the aforesaid house from Smt. Narayani Devi and Smt. Jai Devi. The petitioner-tenant had assured him to vacate the house in dispute after the respondent retired from service from the post of Trade Tax Officer. The respondent had also taken a stand that he is forced to live in a tenanted house at Jhansi and because of the education of his children he has taken another house on rent at Banda but all his efforts to get the house in dispute vacated which he had purchased fell on deaf ears of the petitioner-tenant and he is forced to maintain two establishments at two different places on a meagre pension after his retirement inspite of having his own home.;