- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 1-11- 2006 passed by respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2c04, Radhey Shyam & Ors. v. Balakram Bajpai and Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2004, Balakram Bajpai v. Radhey Shyam & Ors. , and order dated 7-5-2004 passed by respondent No. 2 in P. A. Case No. 19 of 2002, Radhey Shyam & Ors. v. Balakram Bajpai, under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 ). The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was registered as P. A. Case No. 19 of 2002, Radhey Shyam and two Ors. v. Balak Ram Bajpai, for release of southern portion of the premises T. P. No. 423 (Old No. 323) on the ground that they bona fide required the aforesaid southern portion of premises No. T. P. 423, Khirni Bagh Shahjahanpur which they alleged to have purchased on 19-12-1986 from Jag Jeewan Sahai through a registered sale-deed. The petitioner was a tenant of the aforesaid premises since before its purchase by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. According to the averments made in the release application by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 the said premises is in dilapidated condition and needs reconstruction after its demolition. The respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 also moved an application in P. A. Case No. 19 of 2002 for issuance of a commission which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority/civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahjahanpur directing the Civil Court Amin, Shahjahanpur to submit his report regarding the condition of the building. The Amin submitted his report dated 1-11-2002 to the effect that the premises in dispute is in dilapidated condition.
(3.) THE petitioner filed his objection to the aforesaid report of the Amin, inter alia, that the house is neither in dilapidated condition nor requires re-construction; that the disputed premises is part of the entire house shown in the plaint by letter A, B, C, D and that the respondents are living in the northern portion and the southern half of the premises is occupied by the petitioner as tenant. The petitioner filed his written statement in the P. A. Case No. 19/2002 denying the allegations made therein.;