- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 4-4-1997 passed by the Prescribed Authority whereby it has set aside the ex parte release order passed under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and directed the restitution of possession to the contesting respondent No. 5, Smt. Uma Sengar. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had obtained the possession of the disputed accommodation on 22-9-1996 in pursuance of the ex parte release order dated 1-4-1995 obtained by them in P. A. Case No. 39 of 1994. An application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the petitioners against three persons, namely, Rajesh Raj, Sanjai Shukla and Ajai Shukla, which was numbered as P. A. Case No. 39 of 1994, on the allegations that the applicant No. 2 (Bechan Singh who is petitioner No. 1 herein) is the owner and landlord of the accommodation in question which consists of two rooms, courtyard, kitchen, verandah, bath room, latrine, is in the tenancy of the aforesaid three persons on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and they have not paid any rent since November, 1989 and the accommodation is bonafidely required for their need and for their family members. The said release application was allowed ex parte as it was not contested. An affidavit on behalf of Rajesh Rai, who was arrayed as O. P. No. 1 in the release application, was filed to the effect that the need of the landlord is bonafide and he is prepared to vacate the disputed accommodation. The Prescribed Authority by its order dated 1-4-1995 allowed the said application ex parte. The release order was put into execution and through Court Amin the possession was delivered to the petitioners on 22-5-1996. Smt. Uma Sengar was not alleged as a party in the release application.
(2.) TWO applications, one by Sanjai Shukla and Ajai Shukla, who were opposite parties No. 2 and 3 in the release application and respondents No. 3 and 4 herein, was filed to recall the said release order on the ground that they were tenants of original owner, Smt. Champak Lata Bose upto April, 1994 and thereafter they vacated the disputed accommodation and handed over its vacant possession to Smt. Champak Lata Bose and they were unnecessarily impleaded as tenants/opposite parties No. 2 and 3 in the release application. It was numbered as M. P. A. Case No. 23 of 1996. Another application was filed by Smt. Uma Sengar, respondent No. 5 herein, on the pleas that the release order was obtained by the petitioners by playing fraud and in execution thereof, she has been evicted. Her case was that she has purchased the said property jointly from Smt. Champak Lata Bose and her daughter by means of sale- deed dated 24-10-1994 and was in occupation thereof and it was being utilized by her on her visits to Allahabad. She had purchased the house looking to the fact of her frequent visits to Allahabad. On 22-5- 1996, the care taker. Brijesh Kumar Singh, on telephone, informed her about her dispossession in pursuance of the release order passed on 1-4- 2005 by the Prescribed Authority. She stated that she is owner in possession of the property in question and having been illegally dispossessed in pursuance of the release order dated 1-4-1995, which was obtained by the petitioners herein by playing fraud, the possession may be restored back. In response to the aforesaid two applications to recall the ex parte order dated 1-4-1995, Bechan Singh, the petitioner No. 1 and Rajesh Rai filed objections separately mainly on the ground that P. A. Case No. 39 of 1994 was filed on correct facts and as the opposite parties therein failed to contest the case, the release order was rightly passed on 1-4-2005. Besides the above, Bechan Singh sought to justify the release order on the ground that he is the owner of the property in question in pursuance of the sale-deed executed by one Ghanshyam in his favour who had purchased the property in question from Smt. Champak Lata Bose. The Prescribed Authority heard the aforesaid two recall applications simultaneously and has disposed them by a common judgment dated 4-4-1995, impugned in the present writ petition and has found that Bechan Singh, the petitioner No. 1 herein, had obtained the release order by playing fraud. He is a class- Ill employee (Clerk) in civil Court, Allahabad and has manufactured forged documents in number of cases to grab the property in question. It has been further found that Alok Kumar Singh, the petitioner No. 2 herein, son of Bechan Singh, has not come forward to contest the said restoration application and Rajesh Rai was 'yes man' of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioners set up Rajesh Rai purposely and by impleading him as opposite party No. 1 in the release application and by getting a favourable affidavit filed through him, got the ex parte release order. The ex parte release order dated 1-4-1995 was set aside and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 therein, namely, Bechan Singh and Alok Kumar Singh were directed to restore back the possession within 24 hours to Smt. Uma Sengar and restored the P. A. Case No. 39 of 1994 to its original number. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) SRI W. H. Khan and SRI Vishnu Gupta, Advocates were heard in support of the petition. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owners of the property in question. They submit that this Court should enter into the controversy and determine the question of title to the disputed property. It was urged that on the facts, Smt. Uma Sengar, who was not a party in the release application, had no authority to file restoration/recall application and the title of the petitioners to the disputed property is established on the basis of certain decrees passed by civil Court, though ex parte, in favour of the petitioners. It was also submitted that in any case, Smt. Uma Sengar cannot be said to be the owner of the property in question and as such, the order of restitution, directing the petitioners to restore possession back to Smt. Uma Sengar, is illegal. In reply, Sri S. P. Singh and Sri Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents submit that as found by the Prescribed Authority as well as on the basis of attending facts and circumstances of the case, it is a case of fraud, manipulation of judicial record and civil Court decree by the petitioner No. 1, Bechan Singh, who is a Class-Ill employee in the civil Court as a Clerk, this Court should not interfere in the matter. They submit that the High Court after getting inquiry done, has already lodged FIR against the petitioner No. 1 under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code for fabrication and manipulation of civil Court record, document, etc.;